news details |
|
|
| NC-PDP two sides of one and the same coin, seeking to break India | | | RUSTAM
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Oct 8: Let us quote here verbatim some relevant
portions of the Mufti’s Washington D.C. shared sovereignty speech.
These read: “In all these circumstances – India, Pakistani, international
– the only viewpoint that has not unfortunately been adequately
highlighted is the people of Jammu and Kashmir. There is, of course,
the argument for the inclusion of the people of Jammu and Kashmir
into the resolution process to ensure that India and Pakistan do
not walk away from the bilateral talks. The problem is that the
heterogeneity of views in Jammu and Kashmir has become the easy
excuse for that exclusion.” What a silly and ridiculous formulation!
Whom Mufti wants to befool?
“Conceptually, the challenge in Jammu and Kashmir is to
integrate the region without disturbing the extent sovereign authority
over delimited territorial space. There is no need to negate the
significance of the LoC as territorial divisions but it is imperative to
negate its acquired and imputed manifestation of state competition for
power, prestige, or an imagined historical identity. The idea is to retain
the former and change the latter. Therein lies the key to the solution of
Jammu and Kashmir dispute.”
“The operational challenge in Jammu and Kashmir is to establish
innovative institutional arrangements that have a political, economic
and security character. The two countries – India and Pakistan – have
to resolve the very difficult problem of ‘domestic’ integration within a
split international political and economic structure. Our basic premise
is that the search for solution to the issue of Jammu and Kashmir is the
search for an inter-nation states, but still has a supra-national basis…”
“To put issue in analytical terms, we have to find ways and means
of ‘sharing sovereignty’. This makes it ‘more than alliance’ (where
alliance that means that a group of nations forms a selective agreement
without the need of giving up relevant pieces of sovereignty)…”
“In view of the past history, the stated positions and the emotional
surcharge, a one-point-one-time solution for resolution of the conflict is
a near impossibility. What is required is a sequence of measures, which
would resolve the situation. These initiatives need to be less dramatic
and insightful. What is needed is a practical step-by-step extrication of
the state from the tragic muddle. But it should not be a matter merely of
atmospherics, either...Each move, small or significant as it may sound,
will have to be a part of a larger resolution designed with a broad end-
result in view. (What is this broad end-result in view? It is nothing but
a framework that empowers Islamabad to share equal sovereign powers
with New Delhi in the Indian Jammu and Kashmir.) Depending on the
nature of successes, the course can be modified and calibrated on the
emerging political situation.”
“At a practical level, it should be obvious that the Jammu and
Kashmir issue cannot be solved exclusively on an inter-state level (I,e.
within India or within Pakistan). It requires a combination of intra-
state (across India and Pakistan) and intra-state (within Jammu and
Kashmir and cross-line of control) measures. Thus, it would seem
prudent to advocate a three-step approach to resolution of the issue –
introducing fundamental principles of a solution, which would reduce
uncertainty and provide a ‘road-map.’ Ceating a dual relationship
between the people of Jammu and Kashmir and combining this power-
sharing arrangement with regional and national integration.”
“Our aim is not to discuss the complexities of history and geo-
politics, but, instead, to shift focus to more practical issue. It is argued
that the solution of the Jammu and Kashmir issue must be built on
three essential elements: 1) introduction of clearly defined fundamental
principles on which the solution must be based; 2) creation of a proper
system of integration between arrangements; and 3) combining of this
arrangement into the framework of Indian and Pakistan polity…”
“…This approach, which is underlying the concept of self-rule,
is the only way that would eliminate the sources of ethno-territorial
conflicts, entrenched in the traditional notions of sovereignty, self-
determination, national and ethnic borders.”
The resolution on self-rule adopted by the People’s
Democratic Party Executive Committee, held under the party patron,
Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, in Jammu on February 11, 2007, also says
the same thing and demands withdrawal of the Indian Constitution
from Jammu and Kashmir. In this regard the resolution, inter-alia,
says: The “People’s Democratic Party recognizes that the people of the
state, unlike other states, which acceded with the Union of India, were
assured and promised internal sovereignty and self-rule by allowing the
state to have its own Constituent Assembly, its own constitution and flag
and a vast degree of self-governance. This was reflected in Article 370 of
the Constitution of India. Unfortunately, this Article, which was meant
to be bridge between the Union of India and the State of Jammu and
Kashmir, has been used as one-way window to undermine the internal
sovereignty of the state and subvert the ideal of self-governance
promised to the people of the state. The successive governments of
Jammu and Kashmir, unfortunately, were parties to this subversion,
many aberrations have taken place in the originally conceived and
devised constitutional arrangement with the Union of India. In
particular, self-rule was denied to people, by depriving them (of) the
opportunity to freely express their political verdict or by thwarting their
verdict when given…People’s Democratic Party resolves to correct these
distortions and aberrations that have crept in self-rule, as…part of its
comprehensive formula to resolve Kashmir.” (To be continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
