news details |
|
|
| CM remarks on Indo-Pak relations fine, but on J&K | | STARK REALITY | | RUSTAM
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Mar 3: Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s March 2 Legislative Council remarks on Indo-Pak relations could not be questioned. He was right when he said that “smooth relations between India and Pakistan have good effect on our state and bad relations create an adverse result”.
However, one cannot completely agree with his statement that the “Indo-Pak relations have direct bearing on J&K”. The reason is simple: J&K is an integral part of India and whatever happens here have direct bearing on the national psyche.
The other reason is that it is not just J&K that suffers due to the Pakistan-sponsored terror. The entire nation has been suffering due to the Pakistani-sponsored terrorism since decades. It has witnessed dreaded attacks on the Indian Parliament, Red Fort, Mumbai, Jaipur, Pune, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Bangalore, to mention only a few. In fact, India is the second most worst affected country in the world after Iraq, and now perhaps Afghanistan.
It would have been better had the Chief Minister called a spade and spade and held Islamabad responsible for the Indian woes. It is Pakistan, and not India, which is sponsoring terrorism. It is Pakistan, and not India, which has its evil eyes fixed not only on the J&K territories but also its precious waters. It is Pakistan, and not India, which has been fomenting troubles in J&K and other parts of India since 1947, despite the fact that New Delhi has along remained generous towards Pakistan and let it go scot-free on innumerable occasions against the national will. One can only express the view that the Chief Minister would finally recognize the ground realities and call the Pakistani bluff.
The Chief Minister would do exceedingly well to not only call the Pakistani bluff, but he would also do well to reformulate his views on J&K. His suggestions regarding the “quiet” talks between New Delhi and Kashmiri separatists and talks between New Delhi and J&K are fraught with dangerous ramifications. These remarks simply create confusion among the people about the political future of the state, which, according to the J&K Constitution (Part II, P. 2) “is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India”.
But more than that, such remarks make the people concluded that those ruling the state do not consider J&K as an integral part of India and that they have no love lost for the Indian Constitution. So much so, such remarks also lead one to conclude that those who are questioning the politico-constitutional relations between J&K and New Delhi are guided solely by those fundamentalists and reactionaries who wish to replace the parliamentary with theocracy of worst form or those who still believe in the obnoxious two-nation theory -- Hindus and Muslims cannot live together.
The J&K Constitution, like the Constitution of India, nowhere suggests that anybody can tinker with the statutes on the territorial integrity of the country. Those who believe that they have the ability and capability of persuading New Delhi to allow J&K to go out of India are obviously living in a world of the past. Besides, they are creating fear psychosis among the non-Muslim minorities in the state, as also provoking the people in other parts of the country to the extent that they have started looking with suspicion all Kashmiri Muslims, without any exception, who venture out of the state for various reasons, including in search of jobs or seeking admission in universities and professional institutions.
It is imperative on the part of those at the helm of affairs in the state to set the record straight by saying that J&K shall ever remain an integral part of India, that there is place in their scheme of things who preach communalism, separatism and merger with Pakistan and that the Indian Constitution has to be respected in its entirety. The sooner they, including the Chief Minister, do so the better. Not to do so or to continue to cling to these controversial stands would be only to hasten the process of the state’s disintegration and invite more trouble for the already rather troubled people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
