news details |
|
|
| Paradigm shift in Kashmir policy | | End of Nehruvian era | | Neha
JAMMU, Aug 25 : J&K, like 560-odd other princely states, acceded to India in 1947 as per the constitutional law on the subject, but, sadly, many of our Prime Ministers treated this solitary state differently just because the Muslim population was about 20 per cent more as compared with the non-Muslims. In fact, they took a stand that created serious doubts in the minds of the international community about the political status of J&K vis-à-vis India and in a way strengthened communal and separatist forces in Kashmir, who considered the Indian presence in Kashmir, unwarranted, illegal and against their will.
For example, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1948 promised a plebiscite to ascertain if the Kashmiri Muslims wanted to remain part of India or wanted the state to go out of it. Likewise, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi entered into an accord with chairman of Plebiscite front, Sheikh Abdullah, in 1974 and brought down her own party’s government in February 1975 to bring back to power the otherwise deflated Sheikh. Besides, the Indira Gandhi-Sheikh Abdullah accord empowered the Sheikh to review those central laws which, according to him, had “eroded” the state’s separate status and undermined “Kashmiri identity”.
Prime Ministers PV Narasimha Rao and Inder Kumar Gujral also didn’t lag behind. While Narasimha Rao made “sky is the limit” for autonomy for J&K declaration at Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) in 1995, Gujral talked of “out-of-box” solution to the so-called Kashmir issue and came out with a doctrine, called Gujral Doctrine, that envisaged unilateral concessions to Pakistan. Ironically, Narasimha Rao’s declaration preceded by the February 22, 1994 unanimous Parliamentary resolution that described J&K an integral part of India. In between, Prime Ministers V P Singh, Chandra Shekhar and H D Deve Gowda also advocated maximum possible autonomy as a viable solution to the Kashmir issue.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s policy towards Kashmir was no different. He also played with dangerous tools. During the first roundtable conference in 2006 at his official residence, he advocated the need for a “broader consensus” on greater autonomy and self-rule for J&K. Not just this, he also appointed five working groups on J&K in 2006 and he made announcement to this effect in Srinagar after the conclusion of the second roundtable conference. In May 2009, when election campaign was in full swing, he regretted the fall of Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf, saying had the latter been not removed from the office, he would have signed an agreement on J&K with him. The agreement that they had reportedly agreed to sign envisaged four things: Demilitarisation, irrelevant LoC, self-governance, joint-management or shared sovereignty. And in October 2010, he appointed three interlocutors charged with the responsibility of looking into the causes of alienation in the Valley and recommending measures aimed at resolving the Kashmir issue once and for all. Significantly, two of the three interlocutors had told Kashmir University students that they were in complete accord with them as far as their demand for azadi was concerned and that they would urge the UPA Government to “amend the Indian Constitution to accommodate the azadi demand”.
But these constitute only a few of the several such instances, which only serve to demonstrate that all these Prime Ministers mishandled Kashmir. Leave aside the numerous financial and employment packages the Various Prime Ministers announced to appease the so-called alienated Kashmiri Muslims. Indeed, their loose statements and controversial actions only accorded a dangerous legitimacy to the politics of communalism and separatism in the Valley, resulted in religious cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus in early 1990 and disturbed the state’s delicate socio-political equilibrium, complicated further the already rather complex situation in Kashmir and created a deep sense of insecurity among the people of Jammu province and Ladakh region. It’s no wonder that even those who were constitutionally bound to uphold the Indian Constitution and national unity and integrity used the floor of the Legislative Assembly to challenge the very accession of the state to India and accuse our Prime Ministers of “betraying” Kashmiri Muslims by not fulfilling the promises they held out. Take, for instance, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s March 25, 2013 Legislative Assembly speech on the political status of J&K.
The massive victory of the BJP and the installation of Narendra Modi as the country’s Prime Minister after ten years of the Congress’ gross misrule have dramatically changed the whole situation. There is a paradigm shift in the Kashmir policy. Modi visited J&K on December 1, 2013 and March 26, 2014 to seek people’s mandate for a strong, stable and genuinely democratic government at the centre. He also visited the state on July 26 and August 12 after becoming Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy. During these visits, he addressed six public meetings, one each at Jammu, Hiranagar and Katra (Jammu province), Uri, Leh and Kargil (Kashmir province). Ladakh region’s Leh and Kargil districts are administratively part of Kashmir division. What was conspicuous by its absence in all these six great addresses was any reference whatever to Kashmir issue. Of course, he did talk about Kashmir, like he talked about Jammu and Ladakh, but the context was entirely different. It was development, development and only development. He didn’t announce any special financial or employment package for Kashmir. Nor did he urge Kashmiri leadership to come to Delhi to hold discussions on the political future of the state. All of his addresses were state and nation-centric and his emphasis was wholly and solely on infrastructural development and governance. Not just this, at four places (Jammu, Hiranagar, Leh and Kargil), he strongly cautioned Pakistan against what it had been doing to J&K and other parts of the country, talked about the miserable plight of refugees of all varieties and their rehabilitation and resettlement and without mincing words said India would not tolerate any interference in the internal affairs of India. Besides, at Jammu and Hiranagar, he invoked Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and reflected on his supreme sacrifice in Kashmir to tell the audience what he thought about J&K. And at Leh, he condemned Pakistan’s proxy war and discussed the security scenario with Army and Air Force men. But more than that, Mr Modi did not hold one-on-one meeting with Mr Abdullah either at Uri or at Leh and Kargil -- something that never happened in the state post-1947.
The truth, in short, is that Prime Minister Modi made it loud and clear without saying so that there will no place whatsoever in his scheme of things for politics of deceit and religious blackmail and that Kashmir would be treated like other parts of the country. To be more precise, he rejected out-of-hand the Nehruvian approach towards Kashmir. The July 10 Union budget was also an indication that Kashmir will not be accorded a differential treatment. It is this welcome shift in the New Delhi’s Kashmir policy that has completely upset and shattered the entire Kashmiri leadership. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
