news details |
|
|
| Quiet diplomacy, WG recommendations unacceptable: JKPF | | ‘Another Amarnath land like agitation in offing’ | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Dec 25: Sending a strong note to the Centre in the backdrop of its ‘quiet diplomacy’ proposal to resolve Kashmir imbroglio followed by 5th Working Group recommendations for greater autonomy to the state, Jammu and Kashmir People’s Forum today warned that “repeated assault” on the self-respect of Jammuites may trigger agitation on the pattern of last year’s Amarnath land row.
The forum, which is a non-political organisation waging war against the discrimination with Jammu and Ladakh regions, mainly comprised the members of Shri Amarnath Yatra Sangharsh Samiti (SAYSS), social activists, intellectuals, representatives of Kashmiri Pandits and prominent advocates of Jammu.
In a seminar on ‘Important Issues Concerning the State of Jammu and Kashmir’ organised by the forum at Jammu Club, the speakers out rightly rejected the proposal of quiet diplomacy and recommendations of 5th Working Group headed by Justice (retired) Sagheer Ahmed.
“The formula of quite diplomacy proposed by the Centre followed by Working Group recommendations has certainly put the nationalist people in a quandary which they need to be sailed out,” said Jitender Singh, former spokesperson SAYSS while addressing the participants.
Singh further said, “The simmering discontent on the secret talks between separatists and the Government of India is heading towards another agitation that the country had witnessed last year over Amarnath land row.”
The ex-SAYSS spokesperson observed that the quite diplomacy proposal is yet another “manifestation of discriminatory mindset” of the Union Government as the primary focus of this exercise was Kashmir valley with no regard for the fact that Jammu and Ladakh regions too could have their own agendas for talks.”
In his address, Leela Karan Sharma, former convenor SAYSS, categorically made it clear that nothing short of total integration of the Jammu and Kashmir with Indian State is acceptable to the people of the state.
Describing ‘quiet diplomacy’ and Working Group recommendations for greater autonomy as “ploy” initiated by the Center in connivance with Kashmir leadership for a taking the “people of Jammu and Ladakh regions for a ride”, he alleged, “This is an attempt to retrieve down to pre-1953 status.”
“Article 370 is the root cause of all evils and it has cropped up ideology of separatism. It is due to the aftereffects of this Article 370 the people of Jammu and Ladakh now have been facing problems in the shape of quiet diplomacy and greater autonomy,” the ex-SAYSS chief said.
He also demanded that the demand of abrogation of Article 356 should be rejected and more steps should be taken for complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of the country.
Speaking on the occasion, M M Khajuria, former Director General of Police (DGP), who was the chief guest in the seminar, alleged “The Government of India has always tried to fulfill the aspirations of political leaders of Kashmir Valley while the general aspirations of the common masses living there too have been ignored. The need of the hour is to reach out the people of Kashmir Valley as they have same aspirations as the people of Jammu.”
He also stressed for initiating measures to ensure the integrity of all the three regions of the state viz, Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.
Prominent among others who addressed the gathering included Ramesh Sabbharwal, president of the forum, R L Bhat, a KP leader, Brigadier (retired) K S Kotwal and Tashi Tosang, prominent leader of Ladakh region.
The speakers also observed that it is India’s internal problems that may imperil the unity and integrity of the country. “Management of such challenges is largely an internal issue and India can achieve the task by overcoming its soft state syndrome,” they asserted.
Later, a question-answer session was also held where the participants also highlighted different aspects of internal problems faced by the country, in general and J&K in particular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
