news details |
|
|
| Who is Geelani to oppose division of J&K? | | News | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Oct 5: The other day, RSS ideologue and former spokesperson of the RSS M.G. Vaidya suggested trifurcation of the state as a viable solution to end the unrest in the Kashmir Valley and empower the people of Jammu and Ladakh to shape their destiny within India. He put forth this solution in his personal capacity, and not as an ideologue of the RSS. One can understand the reasons behind this clarification. One of the reasons is that the RSS, which had on the eve of the 2002 assembly elections in the state floated Jammu State Morcha (JSM) to fight for separate Jammu state, took a complete U-turn at the behest of the confused and ambivalent BJP and abandoned the statehood plank just on the eve of the 2008 assembly elections. It would be wrong to say that the RSS or its political organ BJP stands for the division of the state. Both the RSS and the BJP have abandoned their Jammu plank to appease the Kashmiri communalists and separatists.
Anyway, as expected, the suggestion of the RSS ideologue has evoked a mixed reaction. The people of Jammu and Ladakh have by and large welcomed the solution as put forth by Vaidya. They believe that trifurcation of the state into Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh states is the only alternative available to restrict the area of contention and strife to the very small Kashmir Valley and empower the people of the two other regions to achieve independence from the discriminatory, communal and separatist Kashmiri leadership.
At the same time, however, they have not taken kindly to the suggestion of Vaidya that Kashmir be given the pre-1953 politico-constitutional status. They have expressed unhappiness over this part of the solution on the ground that the grant of the pre-1953 status to Kashmir would not only mean a major concession to terrorism and politics of communalism, separatism and blackmail being indulged in by the Kashmiri leaders of all hues, but it would also enable Kashmir to assume independence in no time. Their apprehension is well-founded. The pre-1953 political status means just a very small step short of complete independence. The pre-1953 status also means a system outside the political and constitutional organization of India.
In Kashmir, it is Syed Ali Shah Geelani, a votary of Pakistan and "Nizam-e-Mustafa", who has registered his opposition to the idea of the state being trifurcated. His opposition is misplaced. The people of Jammu and Ladakh, irrespective of their religious denomination, have nothing in common with the people of Kashmir. They have been struggling since 1947 to obtain a dispensation independent of Kashmir. They have been seeking liberation on two counts. One is that they do not share the religio-political perceptions of the Kashmiri Muslim leadership and that they want to link their fate with New Delhi, for better for worse. The other is that the ruling elite in Kashmir has rendered the people of Jammu and Ladakh, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs included, ineffective for all practical purposes. They have been reduced to the status of third grade subjects. It is an established fact that the people of Jammu and Ladakh have suffered gross discrimination and neglect at the hands of the Kashmiri leadership, which has all along been permitted by New Delhi to exploit the people of these two regions and enrich Kashmir at their cost.
Who is Geelani to oppose the division of the state? No one in Jammu and Ladakh has given him the mandate to speak on his/her behalf. He has no right to speak even on behalf of the Kashmiri Muslims, who are fed up with the kind of politics he has been playing to promote his self-interest and the Pakistani cause. He is surviving and thriving because the Indian State and the Government Jammu and Kashmir State have been giving to him the moral and political support or dancing to his tunes. New Delhi and the state government are responsible for all the activities Geelani has been able to undertake to jeopardize the Indian interests and vitiate the atmosphere in the Kashmir Valley. The fact of the matter is that Geelani represents only a microscopic minority that stands for regression, fanaticism, persecution of minorities and primitive/medieval ideology and that abhors.
How could Geelani oppose the division of the state, which consists of three disparate regions? It needs to be emphasized that the State of Jammu and Kashmir came into being in March 1846 by a quirk of history and that the story of relations between Jammu and Kashmir and between Kashmir and Ladakh is one of bitterness and animosity. The Kashmiri leadership consistently opposed the merger of Kashmir with the Jammu Kingdom between 1846 and 1947 and dismissed the Dogras of Jammu, who had purchased Kashmir from the British Government and ruled over Kashmir for full 101 years, as "oppressors" and "aliens." Besides, the Kashmiri Muslim leadership consistently hobnobbed with the British Indian Government in order to ensure the abrogation of the Treaty of Amritsar under which the State of Jammu and Kashmir came into being. The memories of what the Kashmiri leadership did during the 1946 Quit Kashmir Movement still linger in the minds of the people. But more than that, the Kashmiri Muslim leadership has never ever regarded the Muslims of Jammu province and the Muslims of Ladakh region as part and parcel of the Kashmiri Muslim society. As a matter of fact, the Kashmiri Muslim leadership has all along dismissed the non-Kashmiri Muslims as fifth columnists.
Let Geelani say whatever he wants to say, but the fact is that no one can keep this state intact. It is destined to break and it will break sooner than later. In fact, the disintegration of the state and bifurcation of the Kashmir Valley are foregone conclusions. These are also the national requirements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
