news details |
|
|
| Separatist's cynicism at height, goof up over looked by Jammu | | President's five day visit to J&K | | Early Times Special Correspondent
Jammu | May 28
News Analysis
The intrinsic anti India mindset of the separatists in Kashmir has given rise to height of cynicism, with everything having any Indian connection causing allergy to them. The just concluded five day visit of President of Pratibha Patil to J&K state provided yet another opportunity to the separatists to give free vent to their anti India feeling and give boost to their movement for secession. The symbolic gesture of the President to boost the morale of the country's armed forces which are deployed to defend country's borders, withstanding all the odd conditions and inclement weather on the high mountains and in thick forests, away from their homes, by posing for a photograph at Tanghdar, with a gun in her hand, was excuse enough for the separatists to characterize the same as a gesture of suppressing the urges and aspirations of the Kashmiris with the use of force and gun against them.
While criticism in sharp terms of this action of the President of India by the secessionists can be brushed aside as a part of their cynicism and a calculated strategy to use any move by the Indian and the state governments to give boost to their anti India tirade, the criticism of the same by the National Conference President Omer Abdullah, who has sought to read too much in this symbolic gesture of the President to demonstrate nation's solidarity with the soldiers fighting on the frontiers, is beyond comprehension. Is it a part of the electoral strategy of the National conference to demonstrate their proximity with the separatist and identify itself with their cynicism also?
Like wise, the President Pratibha Patil's inaugural address at the Kashmir Study Centre set up in the University of Kashmir, where she dwelt at some length about kashmiriyat, has not gone well with the Islamic fundamentalist secessionists in Kashmir. Pratibha Patil's description of Kashmiriyat as the sum total of the teachings of high human values of universal love and tolerance handed over by the Hindu Rishis of the past, the legacy of which was carried by later Muslim Sufi Rishis, has nothing objectionable in it. Yet the same has been denounced by a section of so called intelligentsia in Kashmir, describing the same as a part of cultural aggression of India and Hindu ideology over Islamic ethos of Kashmir. More than this the Vision Document of Kashmir Study Centre, issued on the occasion, which is called by the separatists as the brain child of state Governor S K Sinha, who is also the Chancellor of Kashmir University, has raised eyebrows of some so called enlightened and intelligentsia of Kashmir.
Against these noble ideals and glorifying interpretation of Kashmiriyat by the President of India as well as in the Vision Document of the Study Centre, a goof up by Mrs. Pratibha Patil by describing Kashmiriyat as the heritage of Jammu and Kashmir state as a whole, has not been taken much notice of either by the intelligentsia in Jammu or by the protagonists of separate identity of Jammu. The President, in fact was not briefed properly by her aides, who were supposed to fully enlighten her about the composition of Jammu and Kashmir state, with three distinct socio cultural entities, having their distinct heritage. While Kashmiriyat is the exclusive heritage of Kashmiris, both Hindus and Muslims of Kashmir, any attempt to club the socio cultural heritage of Dogras of Jammu and Buddhists and Shias of Ladakh with Kashmiriyat, will be an erroneous interpretation. In fact including Dogras of Jammu and Ladakhis under the Kashmiriyat, can be characterized as an attempt at cultural aggression of Kashmir over other cultural identities. Even Gujjars inhabiting parts of both Kashmir and Jammu would not like to be called as Kashmiris and their cultural ethos to be clubbed with Kashmiriyat. It is notwithstanding the need for highlighting the composite culture of Jammu and Kashmir and for their synthesis. No doubt the common vein of human love and tolerance as well as search for higher values of life run common in all these distinct cultural entities, yet the over emphasis of one at the cost of other will be only misleading. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
