news details |
|
|
| For the information of controversial interlocutor Padgaonkar | | | RUSTAM
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Oct 26: Yesterday, the Early Times brought to the notice of interlocutors on J&K - Dilep Padgaonkar, Radha Kumar and M M Ansari -- certain glaring disparities between Kashmir and Jammu. The intention was to make them aware of the ground realities in the state and inform them that the problem in Kashmir is neither political nor economic, nor the problem confronting the nation in Kashmir "human." Had that been the case, there would have been complete peace and normality in the Kashmir Valley. After all, it is Kashmir that has been ruling the state ever since 1947. Kashmir that witnessed hundred-year-long (1847-1947) struggle directed against Jammu Kingdom of which Kashmir became part under the 1846 Treaty of Amritsar. The religious readership in Kashmir wanted separation from the Jammu Kingdom. Kashmir that has been witnessing since October 1947 struggle after struggle calculated to force India to quit Kashmir. The guiding force or the motivating force is religion or the pernicious two-nation theory on the basis of which Pakistan came into being -- development that resulted into the brutal murder of millions and millions of people (Hindus & Muslims included), loot, rape and displacement of humanity on an unprecedented scale.
After 1947, when J&K acceded to India in terms of the constitutional law on the subject and the state power transferred from Jammu to Kashmir at the behest of the then Indian Prime Minister overlooking the Jammu's opposition and Jammu's aspirations, it was hoped that the attitude of the Kashmiri leadership would undergo a radical change and it would promote politics in Kashmir based on democratic and economic issues, as opposed to what led to the partition of India. It didn't happen. What happened was to the contrary.
The Kashmiri leadership continued to pursue the line it used to pursue between 1847 and 1947. The only difference was that the Kashmiri leadership after 1947 wanted to achieve two goals - separation from India and domination over and exploitation of Jammu and Ladakh. Paradoxically, New Delhi extended its unflinching support to the Kashmiri leadership and walked into the dangerous communal trap of separatists and communalists. The Kashmiri leadership, instead of inducing the innocent, emotional and gullible people of Kashmir, tried their best to held them aloof, exploited their religious sentiments and created a high wall between Kashmir and the rest of the country.
New Delhi, it, instead of nipping the evil in the bud and persuading the Kashmiri leadership to promote secularism and democracy in the Valley, accepted from time to time the demands put forth by the backward-looking, essentially reactionary and sectarian Kashmiri leadership. In October 1949, the powers-that-be in New Delhi incorporated Article 306 - A (Article 370) in the constitution conferring a very special status on J&K much to the chagrin of the people of Jammu and Ladakh and the Kashmiri integrationists and overlooking the warning of Maulana Hasrat Mohani in the Indian Constituent Assembly that "grant of special status to Kashmir on the score of religion would enable it to assume independence afterwards."
Article 370 entitled the Kashmiri leadership to exercise residuary powers and empowered the state legislature to accept or not to accept any of the Central legislation/legislations. No other state in India exercises residuary powers. These are vested in the Union Government. Article 370 also permitted the Kashmiri leadership to frame a separate constitution for J&K and have a separate flag. Legal luminaries like Rajiv Dhawan equate Article 370 with Article 371 of the Constitution of India and seek to convey an impression that J&K is not the only state that enjoys special status and that there are in the country several states and union territories which also enjoy special political status. This is not a fact. The fact is that J&K is the solitary state in the country that exercises residuary powers and has a separate constitution and a separate flag. There is not a single Central law that has been imposed on J&K against the state's will or without the concurrence of the state government. In fact, those who today demand withdrawal of the Central laws are the ones who themselves were a party to the extension of certain Central laws to the state. For example, between 1975 and 1990, when the NC ruled over the state, the NC-led successive governments brought J&K under the ambit of 18 more Central laws, including POTA. The fact of the matter is that Dr Farooq Abdullah was the first Chief Minister in the whole of the country to adopt and enforce POTA.
In 1949, when New Delhi granted special status to J&K at the behest of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and his Valley-based and Kashmir-centric NC, it was hoped that the Kashmiri leadership would work for the harmonization of relations between Kashmir and the rest of the country. But the Kashmiri leadership took no time in belying the hope. So much so, it spewed venom on India and virtually demanded separation of J&K from India. Sheikh Abdullah, who enjoyed absolute political powers, even hobnobbed with the United States to achieve his objective. He created a situation that forced Prime Minister Nehru to have Sheikh Abdullah dismissed and arrested. In between (June-July, 1952), Nehru and the Sheikh had discussions on the nature of the Centre-state relations. The Sheikh, who had become thoroughly unpopular in the Valley because of his mal-administration and dictatorial policies, revolted even before he and Nehru could reach an agreement on the nature of Centre-State relations. He took this extreme step to deflect the people's attention away from the real issues and sought to put them on the road to separation exploiting their religious sentiments. (To be continued) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
