news details |
|
|
| Europe-style union only solution to problem | | J&K an artificially-constructed entity, says Karan Singh | | Neha
JAMMU, Sept 15: Senior Congress leader and former Sadar-e-Riyasat Karan Singh agrees with the suggestion that Jammu&)Kashmir is essentially an artificially-constructed entity. He tells senior columnist Francois Gautier that "It (J&K) is the exact replica of what was Tito's Yugoslavia before it was broken in parts, or the Austrian empire, which was an amalgam of different States. All empires are artificial.
Look at the one Alexander created, or Ashoka's empire, or Charlemagne's… Often, they are also governed by non-local rulers. Even my family was non-Kashmiri". To make his point clear, Karan Singh said: "By treaty, conquest, or inter-marriages, they created a State comprised five major units, which are fundamentally very different from each other in terms of geography and ethnicity. The territory around Gilgit, which belongs basically to Central Asia; Ladakh, which is an extension of Tibet; what is today under Pakistan's control around Muzarrafad, which is Punjabi Muslim; Jammu, which in essence belongs to Himachal Pradesh; and finally the Valley of Kashmir, of course, which is Indian Muslim at 95 per cent and also belongs to the Kashmir Pandits before they had to flee". As for the internally-displaced Kashmiri Hindus, Karan Singh tells Francois Gautier that the miniscule minority of Kashmiri Hindus never tried to capture political power in the Valley. "They were only the babus, the secretaries, the teachers; there might have been some exploitation, but on the whole they lived peacefully with the Muslims," he said.
This scribe also endorses Karan Singh's suggestion that J&K is essentially an artificial-constructed entity. Indeed, J&K came into being by a quirk of history in March 1846 and there is nothing whatever that is common between the three regions of the state. Had the Lahore Kingdom not suffered a defeat at the hands of the British imperialists, there would not have been the Treaty of Lahore between the victorious British and the defeated Sikhs. Similarly, had there been no Treaty of Lahore there would have been no Treaty of Amritsar in March 1846 between the British and Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu under which Kashmir became part of the Dogra Kingdom of Jammu. And had there been no Treaty of Amritsar there would not have been any Kashmir problem. By Kashmir problem, this scribe means a serious sectarian problem in the Valley - problem created by the protagonists of the pernicious two-nation concept and those who have been at the helm in the state since October 1947, when Maharaja Hari Singh exercised his constitutional authority and linked the fate of the state with India.
Remember, members of one religious sect to which Geelani, Mirwaiz, Abdul Gani Bhat, Yasin Malik, Shabir Shah, Farooq Abdullah, Saif-ud-Din Soz, Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami, Shakeel Bakshi and Syed Salahuddin, to only a few belong, are involved in the ongoing secessionist movement in parts in parts of the Valley proper.
Karan Singh also hits the nail on the head when he says that the hard-line Sunnis of Pakistan have been playing mischief with a view to vitiating the socio-religious and political environment in Kashmir, but he refuses to acknowledge that they have succeeded in their game plan to an extent. "Kashmir has always been inclusive of all religions…Vashnaism was born there, Sufism flourished there, the hard-line Sunnis of Pakistan have tried to change all this, I don't think they have succeeded, as today the Kashmiri Muslim is still more tolerant than his Saudi or Pakistani brother". It is difficult to appreciate the formulation that "Kashmiri Muslim (belonging to a particular religious sect) is still more tolerant than his Saudi or Pakistani brother", but one can understand his compulsion. After all, he himself claims that he is an "elderly statesman" and everyone knows that statesmen have their own way of expressing things. In the instant case, he, however, hardly minced words when he talked about the "hard-line Sunnis" of Pakistan. The only difference was that he expressed his view in a highly sophisticated manner.
Karan Singh also has a solution for J&K. He, according to Francois Gautier, says, "Since 1947…Pakistan has fought four wars to regain Indian Kashmir, five, if you include the proxy war they are waging on us today. In my opinion, I don't think they will ever succeed.
The only solution is a European type of Union in the sub-continent. Look at France and Germany. They fought three wars over two centuries; France even fought a 100 years war with England and they are still bickering at each other over the European Union, or the Euro! We only have been at it for 60 years. A Europe-style union is a logical thing today.
We could have a single rupee in South Asia, no borders, free trade…And a united (Jammu&)Kashmir". The solution as he puts forth is not workable. India and Pakistan are not Germany and France. Nor India and Pakistan are England and France. India believes and practices an ideology Pakistan hates and Pakistan advocates an ideology that is regressive, exclusivist and sectarian. Karan Singh would do well to rethink taking into consideration the irreconcilable contradictions between the two philosophies - Indian liberal and all-accommodating philosophy and Pakistani exclusivist philosophy.
The solution to the communal problem in Kashmir lies in the decimation of Geelanis and their ilk. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
