news details |
|
|
| Krishna's support to Omar deepens mystery on Congress backing to Kashmir CM | | Behind the veil | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
Jammu, Oct 15: If not anybody else it is the Minister for External Affairs, S.M. Krishna, who had, after a gap of about a fortnight, come to the rescue of Kashmir Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah, when he on, Friday, said that there was "nothing objectionable" in his (Omar's) statement in which he had stated that Jammu and Kashmir had acceded and not merged with India.
Krishna has not stopped here when he replied to questions posed by a group of newsmen. He explained it by saying that Jammu and Kashmir had acceded to India the way the Mysore state had acceded. He said like Jammu and Kashmir the Maharaja of Mysore state had signed an accession treaty. He went further to dilate on the matter by informing the media that he (Krishna) is a citizen of Mysore.
Fortunately Krishna did not say anything whether he is a citizen of India also. Two questions emerge out of the revelations of Krishna. One: why did he prefer to keep silent when Omar was being subjected to barbs of criticism within and outside Jammu and Kashmir? One may say that Krishna opened his mouth on the issue when he was asked a specific question by newsmen.
While defending Omar's statement Krishna should have explained that even if Jammu and Kashmir had acceded to India like that of Mysore state there was no separate constitution and flag in Mysore whereas the troubled state has a separate constitution and flag. He should have explained, atleast for the benefit of the people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, especially the separatists, that Mysore has never witnessed any cry for azadi since its accession whereas the separatists have been harping on either Jammu and Kashmir's merger with Pakistan or azadi.
If there are no secessionist elements in Mysore why it should be in Jammu and Kashmir? And had Krishna dwelt on this issue he would have done a great service to the nation by blaming Pakistan for providing material, moral and diplomatic assistance to the separatists and the militants who have left Kashmir bleeding since the rise of militancy in 1989-90.
Second question emerging from Krishna's support to Omar's statement is. Is the Congress led UPA Government a force that has motivated Omar to make a controversial statement on the floor of the Assembly questioning the irrevocability of the state's accession with India ?Gradually the reports indicating that Omar may have consulted the top echelons of the Congress in Delhi before causing a major flutter on the floor of the Assembly by disputing the finality of the state's accession with India have started gaining credence.
Those who suspect the Congress support to Omar dish out two arguments in support of their contention. One, the initial reaction to Omar's statement from the Congress seemed lacking direction. At that stage the Congress spokesman had stated that there was nothing objectionable when Omar announced that he was not heading a Government which was playing a puppet to the centre. The spokesman, while deliberately ignoring the most controversial part of the statement, had said that in the federal system no Chief Minister in India could be treated as a puppet chief Minister.
Secondly, a few days before he made the controversial statement on the state's accession with India Omar had a meeting with Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh in New Delhi, where he discussed the latest security situation in Kashmir and where he pleaded for an attractive employment package. Omar was pleased with the outcome of the meeting because the Prime Minister had given ample hint on his continued trust in Omar and had assured the Chief Minister of a suitable employment package. Did he discuss his plan on opening his mouth on the state's accession with India during his meeting with Manmohan Singh? Or did he broach this subject with some other top congressmen in Delhi trying to convince them that by questioning the state's accession with India he could try for either hijacking the agenda of the separatists or make an attempt at sidelining them? He seems to have failed.
For the time being the mystery behind the circumstances that motivated Omar to dish out a controversial statement may not be unravelled. And as long as this mystery remains unresolved Congress support to Omar could be treated as dubious even though the claim of senior state Congress leaders that the party leadership backed Omar because there was no alternative to him at the present moment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
