news details |
|
|
| Prime's Minister's much-hyped Kashmir visit: Message from Srinagar | | | RUSTAM
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, June 10: Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh would come to Kashmir to "unveil some dramatic new political initiative on Kashmir". This was what a section of the Kashmir-based print media had hoped and expected. But it did not happen. The Prime Minister did not announce any political package. Nor did he meet any separatist leader. He only said that his government is prepared to talk to those who shun violence and terror tactics. He did not even once indicate his desire to interact with Kashmiri separatists.
The Kashmir-based print media, a Jammu-based English language daily and the so-called mainstream Kashmiri leaders had expressed the view that the Prime Minister would come to Kashmir to order reduction in the number of troops in Kashmir. The Prime Minister didn't do so. He justified in his own style the military presence. So much so that he justified the military operations and the operations being carried on against the terrorists by paramilitary forces, saying sometimes the forces have to act to take on the disturbers of peace and anti-state actors, including terrorists. He did express concern over certain incidents, but said in the situation as it has been existing in the Kashmir Valley, sometimes even innocent persons become victims.
The Kashmir-based press persons and a couple of their Jammu-based supporters and leaders of the ruling National Conference and the main opposition party, People's Democratic Party, had sought to create an impression on the eve of the Prime Minister's Kashmir visit that they would succeed in making him to do away with the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), under which the Army exercise extra-ordinary powers meant for dealing with insurgency, including the power to shoot. They had been expressing the view that the Army had been misusing the AFSPA in order to "violate the human rights" and that the withdrawal of what they called this "draconian legislation" from Kashmir was imperative to create an environment conducive for restarting a dialogue process to resolve the internal dimension of the so-called Kashmir dispute.
The National Conference, which has been ruling the state and which is responsible for the maintenance of law and order in the state, even approached the Prime Minister on June 7 and submitted to him a memorandum demanding a regime under which "human rights shall not be violated". The People's Democratic Party leaders also met the Prime Minister and expressed almost identical views. They tried their level best to convince the Prime Minister of the need to withdraw the AFSPA, but failed. The Prime Minister did not even once indicate that their views would be considered.
The National Conference, the People's Democratic Party and the Kashmir-based commentators and peaceniks had expected that the Prime Minister would announce the implementation of the recommendations as contained in the five Working Groups' reports. But nothing of this sort has happened. The Prime Minister did talk about one of the reports that deals with developmental aspect or economic reconstruction and talks about "interaction across the Line of Control". But as far as other reports were concerned, the Prime Minister did not say anything about them. The Kashmiri leaders and political commentators had expected that the Prime Minister would surely order implementation of that report that talks about "human rights violations"; that talks about "reduction of troops"; and that talks about the withdrawal of the AFSPA", but all their high hopes have been dashed to the ground.
The National Conference, in particular, had created an impression that the Prime Minister would surely talk about the Justice Saghir Ahmed's report on Centre-State relations and might even announce that his government would grant autonomy to the state on the lines indicated in the said report. The Prime Minister did not make any comment whatsoever in this regard. Instead, he referred to the diversity in the state in his own typical way. He talked about the inclusion of the maximum possible civil society groups and political leaders of different shades of opinion in the Round Table Conferences and candidly referred to the difference of opinion among those who participated in the round Table Conference. His was a clear message and his message was that he would want to take everyone on board before reaching any decision in this regard. (To be continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
