news details |
|
|
| Governor's praise for the Sheikh questionable | | Secularism & Pluralism, NC Style | | Rustam
JAMMU, Dec 5: One can understand the logic behind the motivated assertions of the National Conference leaders that the father and founder of the Muslim Conference /Nati-onal Conference Sheikh Moham-mad Abdullah was a democrat of democrats and secularist of secularists; that he symbolized unity and amity; and that he was an epitome of pluralistic and secular ideology, but one fails to understand by the constitutional head of the state expresses similar views. Yesterday, many National Conference leaders hailed the Sheikh and his contribution. Fair enough. They did what they were expected to do on the eve Sheikh Abdullah's birth anniversary.
They hailed him notwithstanding the fact that many among them know that the politics practiced by him was not only divisive, but also anti-Jammu and anti-Ladakh and patently Kashmir and one sect-centric. Notwith-standing the fact that the founder of the National Conference, who ruled the state between 1947 and 1953 and between 1975 and 1982 and in between tried his best to get the state out of India and set-up "Switzerland-type independent Kashmir" to become its undisputed Sultan. Notwithstanding the fact that they know that Sheikh Abdullah was dismissed from the office of Wazir-e-Azam and put behind bars in 1953 on the charge that he had hobnobbed with the United States in order to ensure the Kashmir's separation from India. Notwithstanding the fact that they know that Sheikh Abdullah and his National Conference had little or no faith in the Indian Constitution and that he wanted a dispensation outside it. Notwithstanding the fact that he advocated plebiscite for many years and remained behind bars for as many as 22 long years. It is hardly necessary to elucidate the point that it was the Congress government which punished Sheikh Abdullah on several occasions, as it considered the Sheikh's antecedents injurious to the paramount national interests in the state. Even today, the National Conference leadership follows in the footsteps of Sheikh Abdullah.
It is intriguing that the he same Congress is sharing power with the National Conference. It is also intriguing that the constitutional head of the state holds the view that the Sheikh strengthened secularism and democracy in the state and that he was "a far sighted politician", who was "committed to safeguarding the pluralistic ethos of the State at the time of partition when communal frenzy had engulfed the country". But we are a democratic country and everyone has the right to say what he/she wants. However, it would have been better, had the constitutional head of the state also informed the people about the impact the Sheikh's politics had on the state. Such an approach on his part was imperative considering the fact that the nation has been paying through its nose for what the Sheikh did throughout his life. Credit goes to leaders like Muzzafar Husain Baig (PDP) who have from time to time tried to set the record straight. History is history and it keeps on reminding the people about the role leaders played. They say that the Sheikh did dilute his ideology in 1974-1975 but only for the sake personal power and profit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
