news details |
|
|
| Experts decode Chidambaram's stand on Kashmir | | Autonomy issue | | ET Report
JAMMU, July 22: Senior Congress leader and former Union Home Minister P Chidambaram's statement on autonomy for Kashmir has evoked strong reaction from some Kashmir experts. They have rejected his autonomy suggestion and said Kashmir already enjoyed maximum autonomy under the constitution. They have said Chidambaram has moved closer to a "secular-left" position, which is just a hop, step and jump away from the JNU position on Kashmir and "azaadi"?. "This is exactly what the jholawallahs surrounding Sonia Gandhi and Rahul's coterie would want. Chidambaram the economic liberaliser will now play a recessed role," they have said.
Chidambaram has batted repeatedly for removing the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, ending the death penalty, and indirectly blamed both the defence ministry and the home ministry (after he left the job) for not adopting his soft line on Kashmir. As for the UPA-2's economic mismanagement, he has covertly blamed Pranab Mukherjee by claiming he did all the right things when he became FM again in 2012, forgetting that the slide into high fiscal deficits began when he abandoned the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act in 2008 -well before the global financial crisis.
Chidambaram's statements are followed by the experts' comments, including the follow-up questions that needed asking.
Chidambaram said: "We have ignored the grand bargain (under which J&K acceded to India) I think we broke our promises and faith (to the people of Kashmir). What is necessary is to give an assurance that the grand bargain will be fully honoured. Let them frame their own laws as much as possible as long as it doesn't conflict with the constitution."
Comment: So you agree the Nehru, Indira and Rajiv, apart from your own government, broke the bargain with the Kashmiris (read Kashmiri Muslims)? What, according to you was the grand bargain, and why is it only Kashmir that could be given this deal and not other Indian states? No law passed by Parliament is applicable to J&K even now, unless accepted by the J&K Assembly. So what more laws can Kashmir be allowed to pass that will be applicable only that state?
Chidambaram said: "We have to assure (Kashmiris) that we will respect identity, history, culture, religion...we are preaching Sri Lanka the same thing (on devolution of powers). We cannot allow the situation to continue, otherwise we will descend into chaos...we are defending the land, but ignoring the people...".
Comment: Which identity of Kashmir is not being respected? When every Indian state has the right to preserve its culture, how is Kashmiri identity being diluted by the rest of India, especially when no non-Kashmiri can buy land or settle in Kashmir? And can culture be protected fully from change by building walls around Kashmir? And what is the religious identity we need to protect? The fight earlier was for Kashmir's syncretic culture, which includes its Sufi and Kashmiri Saivist roots. Is all this to be sacrificed on the altar of Islamism that has now driven the Pandits out of the Valley? If Kashmir can keep the rest of India out in the name of protecting its culture, why Raj Thackeray was stopped from keeping Biharis out of Mumbai?
Chidambaram said: "The ruling alliance itself is a provocation for the Kashmiris. The people of Kashmir loath the BJP's ascendancy. Mufti Mohammad Sayeed made a serious mistake in allying with BJP."
Comment: Since when did Kashmir become only about the Valley's Muslims? The state is called Jammu & Kashmir, and Jammu gave a clear mandate to the BJP. The PDP-BJP was the only combination with the mandate to rule Jammu & Kashmir. So where is the affront to Kashmir? Unless you are saying the Valley has a veto on Jammu's politics. If Sayeed made a mistake, why didn't Congress and National Conference offer unconditional support to the PDP to run a government, if the idea was to keep the BJP out?
Chidambaram said: "Kashmir requires a unique political solution."
Comment: Kashmir already has a unique status under article 370. How much more unique can a solution be for one state? If Kashmir is given even more powers, why deny it to the Akalis in Punjab or the Dravidian parties in Tamil Nadu or, in fact, any state in India? The only logical argument is that all Indian states need more powers so that India becomes a federation where state and central powers don't conflict. Kashmir has no claims to something special beyond what it has already got. While Kashmiris may have a special attachment to article 370, the best way to abolish it is to make the federal structure stronger, with lower centralisation of powers with Delhi. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
