news details |
|
|
| Delhi being used by controversial NGOs to promote Pakistani agenda | | | RUSTAM
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, May 11: The so-called "consensus paper" was nothing but a document prepared by the participants to jeopardize the Indian interests and it was obviously based on the inputs of the Pakistani participants. What, however, surprised was the participation of former Cabinet Secretary BG Deshmokh and former Chief of the Army Staff VP Malik. Deshmukk and Malik are known for their commitment to the Indian sovereignty and integrity. There is nothing on record that could even remotely suggest that they had ever endorsed and suggested any solution that compromises the Indian sovereignty, that enables Islamabad to have any say in the Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir and that enables Kashmir to enjoy greater autonomy, bordering on sovereignty. That they signed the "consensus paper" should shock every concerned Indian.
As for other Indian participants, it was expected that they would tread the path charted by Islamabad or those who represented Pakistan in the CDR-sponsored track-II meeting. No one had expected that Rajmohan Gandhi, former Foreign Secretary Salman Haider, Congress leader Mani Shanker Aiyar, Chandrasekhar, Ex. Maj. Gen Dipankar Banerjee, V. Balachandran, Ramaswami Iyer, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, Syeda Hameed, Dr. Amitabh Mattoo and journalists Kumar Ketkar, Mohammed Sayeed Malik, Teesta Setalvad, Karan Thapar, Siddharth Vardarajan and Neerja Choudhary would put their foot down and oppose any decision that suits Pakistan.
Rajmohan Gandhi is too well-known for a solution that is acceptable to Pakistan and communalists. Salman Haider has on occasions more than one put forth solutions that not only recognize Pakistan as one of the most important stakeholders in the Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, but also accord a very special treatment to Kashmir on the ground that it is a Muslim-majority area. Similarly, Mani Shanker Aiyer has never considered Jammu and Kashmir at par with other states of the Indian Union. In fact, he is a votary of greater autonomy. The views of Wajahat Habibullah are no different. As a matter of fact, he has been working for the division of Jammu and Kashmir into five communal zones, as also for two assemblies each for Jammu province and Ladakh region and one assembly for the whole of Kashmir. He stands for greater autonomy for Kashmir or he stands for a system that is outside the Indian constitutional framework. Likewise, Prof Amitabh Mattoo is for a solution that not only enables Pakistan to share sovereign authority with India in the Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, but also empowers Jammu and Kashmir to exercise absolute legislative, executive and judicial powers. He is for self-rule.
As far as Ex. Maj. Gen Dipankar Banerjee, V. Balachandran, Ramaswami Iyer, Syeda Hameed and Teesta Setalvad are concerned, each one of them is known for their controversial views. They belong to a particular lobby that holds New Delhi responsible for the so-called alienation of Kashmiri Muslims from the national mainstream, that wants a separate dispensation for Kashmir and that holds the view that the Indian army and paramilitaries have been violating the "human rights" of Kashmiri people, other than non-Muslims. Similarly, journalists like Kumar Ketkar, Mohammed Sayeed Malik, Karan Thapar, Siddharth Vardarajan and Neerja Choudhary stand for a political system that treats the people of Kashmir as a race apart. They have repeatedly suggested autonomy for Kashmir.
It is an irony that those who have no stakes in Jammu and Kashmir and those who represent the viewpoint of a microscopic minority are being allowed to vitiate the atmosphere in the country. How could they speak on behalf of the people of Jammu and Ladakh? How could they speak on behalf of those who were hounded out of the Valley in early 1990 by the gun-totting militants and separatists? How could they speak on behalf the religious and ethnic minorities of the state like Gujjars and Bakerwals who are ardent supporters of the Indian Constitution? Who have given them the mandate to determine the political future of the state and the people of Jammu and Ladakh and several religious and ethnic minorities? Had such things happened in China or the United States, these so-called conflict-managers would have been either shot dead or they would have been put behind the bars.
The Government of India must not allow the NGOs like CDR to indulge in areas that deal with the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India. In fact, the Government of India should imitate Pakistan that consistently seeks to evolve a national consensus by discussing issues, including the Kashmir issue, with Pakistan's former foreign ministers, former foreign secretaries, former ambassadors and all the political parties. Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi's today's press conference on the proposed Foreign Ministers-level talks in Islamabad on July 15 and the revelations he made about his meetings with Pakistan's former foreign ministers, former foreign secretaries and former ambassadors must make the authorities in New Delhi to sit up and revise their whole approach towards the Indian foreign policy, as also towards the NGOs like CDR. Depending on CDR or similar other NGOs would only to help the Pakistan cause and ensure disintegration of India. (Concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
