news details |
|
|
| Interlocutors’ J&K visit: Gains &Losses | | NEWS ANALYSIS | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Oct 29: Now that interlocutors on J&K had gone back to Delhi after spending almost six days in the state (five days in Kashmir and one day in Jammu), it is time to examine the approach they adopted to the issues facing the people of the disturbed state and fall-out of their visit. Such an exercise is a must in order to put things in perspective. Such an exercise would help policy-planners in New Delhi or those handling the sensitive border State of J&K reach right conclusion and tell the interlocutors where they went wrong or otherwise.
In Kashmir, the interlocutors tried their level best, even at the cost of their self-respect, to meet the established separatists, but failed. They failed despite the fact that they spoke the language of the separatists, as also the language of Maoist terrorists Arundhati Roy, Gautam Navlakha and Varvara Rao. They failed despite the fact that they talked about roadmap for “Azaadi” ad Pakistan and Pakistani concerns, and even suggested an amendment in the Indian Constitution to accommodate the demand of “Azaadi.” There in Kashmir, they visited the houses of those responsible for the current strife in the Valley, as also the houses of certain PDP leaders like Muzaffar Hussain Beig and a well-known sympathizer of separatists and extremists, Aga Ashraf, who masquerades as a democrat of democrats and secularist of secularists. There in Kashmir, they visited jails to inquire about the well-being of the subversives. They also visited the Kashmir University and met a number of students. In Kashmir, they declared time and again that they didn’t believe in protocol and that they would go to the residences of the separatists like Geelani. In other words, in Kashmir, they did everything that could give legitimacy to the politics of separatism, extremism, Pakistan, autonomy and independence, with parties like the BJP asking the Prime Minister as to the terms of reference prescribed for the interlocutors. The BJP attacked the Prime Minister and denounced the interlocutors in downright language.
In Jammu, the two interlocutors – Dileep Padgaonkar and Radha Kumar – took a different line. (M M Ansari chose not to visit Jammu for reasons best known to him.) Here in Jammu, they spent most of the time at their disposal in clarifying their position on J&K. Here in Jammu, they sought to blame the Kashmir-based media for distorting their statements and tried to convince the Jammu-based media persons that they neither suggested “Azaadi” for the state nor did they talk about the need of amending the Indian Constitution in order to accommodate the “Azaadi” demand. On the contrary, they told reporters in Jammu that they are for a solution that is acceptable to Jammu and Ladakh as well and solution that is acceptable to Indian Parliament and Indian public opinion. Here in Jammu, the interlocutors talked of self-respect and declared that they would never visit the houses of the separatists on their own and that they would meet them only if they so like. It was a complete U-turn. In other words, in Jammu, the interlocutors behaved as Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah used to behave or other Kashmiri leaders use to behave. “Kashmiri leaders speak differently in the Valley, Jammu and New Delhi.”
Here in Jammu, they waited for the people to meet them. Some of them did meet them. Reports suggest that what they told the interlocutors was different from what the interlocutors were told in Kashmir. Of course, Zahur-ud-Din and others of his ilk were there to tell the interlocutors that the “promises made by the Government of India must be fulfilled.” The established political groups had boycotted them. Here in Jammu, they didn’t think it necessary to visit the houses of those who matter. Of course, they visited a few houses belonging to those close to the National Conference or those who are pledged members of the National Conference and those very close to Hurriyat Conference and votaries of autonomy, namely Balraj Puri, Devendra Rana and Jitendra Bakshi. They even visited the Kot Bhalwal Jail in order to meet separatists like Shabbir Ahmad Shah, but failed because these separatists refused to meet them. They rebuffed the interlocutors. Here in Jammu, they didn’t think it prudent to visit the camps housing refugees from Pakistan-occupied-J&K and from West Pakistan. They did visit a camp housing displaced Kashmiri Hindus early in the morning without informing them that they would come and listen to their woeful tales. They could meet only a dozen of people, who told them that they would not accept anything short of separate homeland within the Valley and under the Indian Constitution. They promised that they would spend more time with the refugees of all varieties during their next visit.
The moral of the story is that the interlocutors were failed to break the ice in Kashmir and they failed in Jammu as well. In fact, they were destined to fail and they failed. If any thing, they created more confusion and angered the nationalist constituency in the state and in the rest of the country. New Delhi would do well to reconsider their decision to appoint interlocutors like Pagaonkar. New Delhi doesn’t need any interlocutor on J&K. What the state needs is its reorganization on regional basis. Reorganization is the first step towards resolution of the problems facing different people inhabiting different regions. Even the Congress leaders said so while interacting with the interlocutors. Will New Delhi rise to occasion and take this first step? It must because there is no other option available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
