news details |
|
|
| Ignoring aspirations of Jammu & Ladakh | | Search for a settlement | | Neha
JAMMU, Mar 18: One can understand the reasons behind the insistence of the Valley leadership on Kashmir and a particular community-centric "settlement of the Kashmir issue", but one fails to understand why some "opinion leaders" vouch for a "settlement" that ignores the people of Jammu province and Ladakh region and other religious and ethnic minorities, including the internally-displaced Kashmiri Hindus. Only the other day, a lead editorial "Kashmir's unsettled business" in a leading national daily suggested that the Kashmiri Muslims are the sole factor in the State's political situation and sought to create an impression that Jammu and Kashmir is an unsettled issue and opined that conceding the divisive and communal demands of the Kashmiri Muslims would be the same as meeting the needs, urges and aspirations of the entire population of the State.
The editorial appeared a day after Srinagar witnessed fidayeen attack and its opening line read: "Wednesday's fidayeen attack in Srinagar is a reminder of the unfinished business India must attend to in Jammu and Kashmir". It did refer to Jammu, but the solution that it recommended was based on the premise that Kashmir means the entire State Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.
It would be only appropriate to quote verbatim some relevant portion from the highly biased and lop-sided editorial. Such an approach is imperative in order to inform the esteemed readers of Early Time Plus that there are elements outside the political establishment, separatist camp and the camp represented by "mainstream" Kashmiri leaders who have also been advocating a line, which, if accepted, would not only end the Indian presence in Jammu and Kashmir, but also seal the fate of people of Jammu, Ladakh and religious and ethnic minorities in the State for ever.
What did the editorial says? It said: "The Centre must recognize that the challenge it faces is both military and political. As it takes measures to deal with the threat of fidayeen attacks, the Government needs to work proactively to implement the many sensible measures contained in the report of the Group of Interlocutors on Kashmir, beginning with the proposal that Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has himself mooted of lifting the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act from those areas of the State where violence has abated. The report also wanted the Centre to move towards ensuring special status for Jammu and Kashmir, enabling the economic self-reliance of the State, and easing the movement of people and goods across the Line of Control. A review of all Central laws and Articles of the Constitution extended to the State since 1952 by a Constitutional Committee will also have to be done as part of the search for a settlement. Of course, the short-term response will have to be increased vigil and tough counter-measures from the security forces. But care must be taken not to further alienate the people of Kashmir in the name of counter-insurgency measures. Irrespective of what Pakistan can or cannot do, militancy can only be contained and defeated with the support of the people of the State. In political terms, this means the search for ways to meet the democratic aspirations of the Kashmiris has to be an integral part of India's counter-insurgency strategy".
The editorial writer, who is on the staff of such a prestigious daily of international repute, nowhere talked about the aspirations of the people other than the "Kashmiris" (in this case Muslims). Besides questioning the very integration of the State into India, the editorial commended the interlocutors obnoxious recommendations, which were rejected by the people of Jammu and Ladakh and internally displaced Kashmiri Hindus, refugees from West Pakistan and refugees from POJK, the day the interlocutors' report became public. It described as "democratic" the "aspirations of the Kashmiris" (in this case communal urge for separation from democratic India or urge for a dispensation that is outside the constitutional organization of India - pre-1953 politico-constitutional status or a step short of independence). It is not fair. This is not the way to treat Jammu and Ladakh which have suffered enormously during the past 65 years and continue to suffer even today for the national cause in the State. It is disturbing that there are "opinion leaders" in India who willfully ignore the ground realities and side with the negative forces in the name of "secularism". They must remember that they are playing with fire.
They must refashion their whole approach taking into consideration the fact that Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh are three distinct regions, which house different people professing different ideologies. Their approach has to be holistic and nation-centric and there is no other alternative available to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
