news details |
|
|
| Indo-Pak Composite Dialogue: Farooq, Omar drawn in different directions | | | RUSTAM
JAMMU, JAN 31: Relations between Union Minister Farooq Abdullah and his son and Chief Minister Omar Abdullah are far from cordial. This becomes clear when one look at the diametrically opposite stands the father-son duo took on the issue of composite dialogue process between India and Pakistan.
On January 25, Omar Abdullah stressed the need for the resolution of the external dimension. His suggestion was to the effect that India must address the Pakistani concerns so that the relations between the two countries are harmonized and peace restored in the sub-continent.
A day later while talking to media persons, Omar Abdullah emphasized the need for the resumption of the stalled composite dialogue process. His suggestion was: Violent incidents along the international border or Actual Line of Control could not be allowed to come in the way of negotiations between the two countries. His argument was that when the negotiations between the two countries were on, there was peace all along the border and the Actual Line of Control.
Omar Abdullah took this line in Jammu overlooking the kind of impact it would have on the Jammu psyche and the nationalist camp. It was expected that the people in Jammu would strongly react to what Omar Abdullah carelessly suggested and it actually happened. The Panthers Party even went to the extent of demanding Omar Abdullah’s resignation, of course, on the ground that his administration sided with the Kashmiri separatists by making the concerned authorities not to hoist the national flag at Lal Chowk on the Republic Day. It was for the first time in 19 years that the security forces were barred by the administration from hoisting the national flag at Lal Chowk, Srinagar.
Contrast the Omar Abdullah’s stand with the stand taken by his father in Jammu itself just four days later. Without mincing words, Farooq Abdullah rejected outright the Omar Abdullah’s stand. Much to the chagrin of his son, the Union Minister and president of National Conference told media persons that he was in complete accord with the “Indian stand is that Pak must take action against all those involved in the Mumbai terror attacks (26/11). I think when India feels that Pakistan is sincerely taking action against the terror accused, it won’t lag behind in initiating talks with the neighbouring country”. So much so, he declared that “talks between India and Pakistan can resume only when our neighbouring country takes action against the perpetrators of 26/11” and that “the hand of friendship should also be extended by the other side”.
The message given by Farooq Abdullah was loud and clear. His message was that he didn’t share the views of his son as well as Pakistan Prime Minister who, on January 26, told a private Indian TV channel that composite dialogue between India and Pakistan could not be held hostage to 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai”.
It is not for the first time that Farooq Abdullah and Omar Abdullah have treated different paths. They have been airing different views on the same issues ever since January 5, 2009, when Omar Abdullah assumed the office of Chief Minister with the Congress backing, thus ignoring his own claim. It was Farooq Abdullah who had led the party during the election days and it was he who had declared umpteen times that he would be the next Chief Minister in case his party would perform well.
It would be only desirable to point out that whatever Farooq Abdullah has said about the possibility or otherwise of the composite dialogue process is something the Indian nation would welcome. For, his stand appears to be correct. Pakistan and its supporters in the state just cannot bleed India and ask her to start parleys with it at the same time. It would be better for the Chief Minister to follow in the footsteps of his father. Rabble-rousing never pays. It only causes harm.
The Chief Minister has already made several controversial, provocative and divisive statements, which have not helped him and his party in any manner. Now is the time for him to abandon the path of confrontation with the Indian State and discharge his constitutional obligations towards the people of the state and the Indian nation as a whole. He must follow his father who too is known for speaking differently at different places and who also needs to remain consistent, whatever be the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
