news details |
|
|
| Farooq’s TV interview evokes sharp criticism | | ‘Holding talks with militants in third country irrelevant’ | | JAMMU AUG-22- The former Chief Minister and National Conference Patron’s recent diatribe advocating resumption of direct talks with the militant outfits especially HM Chief Syed Salah-ud Din, outside India and Pakistan has evoked sharp criticism in the political circles here.
Dr Abdullah in an interview with local TV channel is reported to have advocated that Indian leaders should invite HM leadership in third country, other than India and Pakistan for holding talks to resolve the Kashmir issue. ‘Holding of parlays with the militant organization outside India and Pakistan would help to solve the Kashmir tangle which has been the bone of contention for both India and Pakistan for the last sixty years’, Abdullah is reported to have said. He said earlier too the Government of India had engaged the HM leadership in talks in August 2000 but the same remained inconclusive.
The political circles are astonished about the former Chief Minister’s suggestion of holding talks with the militants that too in a third country and described it as a mere frustration .How can he dare to talk in this way when he has all along been advocating that Kashmir was, is and shall ever remain integral part of India and no power on the earth could even snatch an inch of our territory. This type of statement has raised several questions that need to be answered by those who matter.
It is not understood how Farooq has changed his mind overnight and started supporting talks with the militants whose hands are soaked with the blood of thousands of innocent Kashmiris including forcible migration of entire Hindu community from the Valley.
I Has the NC chief forgotten the mayhem under which his own leaders and party workers have undergone during the long 16 years of militancy so much some of his close associates had become the militant’s targets. What made Dr Abdullah to make such a statement is not known but the political analysts view it as a mere frustration and nothing more.
Sharply criticizing Abdullah’s controversial interview suggesting talks with the militants outside the soil of India and Pakistan, former Minister and senior Congress leader Yogesh Sawhney said that instead of suggesting talks with the militants, Dr Abdullah who is a seasoned politician should have thought twice what he was saying. It is not understood under whose pressure he has made this suggestion and what he is going to gain from it. If he is interested and thinks that holding talks with militants will help resolve the Kashmir imbroglio, he should convince them to join the talks with the Central leadership without any pre-conditions, Sawhney added.
BJP Vice president and party spokesman Prof Hari Om in its reaction to Dr Abdullah’s outbursts said that ‘it should not surprise anyone as every Kashmiri leader whether from so-called mainstream or separatists have the same ideology to get Kashmir secede from India slowly and steadily.
National Panthers’ Party Supremo Prof Bhim while reacting to Dr Abdullah’s suggestion said that instead of advocating talks with the militants, he (Abdullah) and his party National Conference should come open and surrender before HM Chief Syed Salah-ud-Din .He said it does not behove for a leader like Dr Abdullah who is a seasoned politician and an active member of the Rajya Sabha to make such statement which is not only bad in taste but has hurt the sentiments of the millions of the countrymen..
M Y Tarigami of CPIM while reacting said that there is no harm to talk to militants within the country if it (talks) helps in resolving the Kashmir tangle. He ruled out holding of talks with any group or groups outside the country.
Socialistic Democratic Party firebrand leader Dr Darakhshan Andrabi suggested Dr Farooq Abdullah to vacate the Parliament seat and hold direct talks with the militants if he thinks that it would help resolve the Kashmir issue. Making such type of suggestions by such a tallest political stalwart of the State does not augur well and it seems that he was not speaking of his own but on behalf of some vested interests outside the sub-continent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
