news details |
|
|
| Issue of Discrimination: KU VC Punjabi dismisses Jammu, Doordarshan ignores it | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Nov 8: Yesterday night, Doordarshan, national channel, organized a debate on the solution to the Kashmir issue as well as the role of interlocutors on J&K. There were two panelists from Kashmir, including Vice-Chancellor of Kashmir University, Riaz Punjabi, who had earlier suggested division of Jammu province into three parts on communal lines and merger of the Muslim-majority Mahore tehsil in the Hindu-majority Udhampur district with the erstwhile Muslim-majority Doda district. One panelist belonged to the BJP - Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi. And, the remaining fourth panelist was a Delhi-based university Professor, Dr Behra, who also happens to be a member of the Task force, which was constituted by the Union Government on October 13 to look into the complaints of the people of Ladakh about the neglect of their region. Congress leaders and head of the Leh Autonomous Hill Development Council was also to speak from Leh, but he couldn't because the anchor failed to establish link with him.
The anchor didn't think it prudent to ensure the participation of anyone from the Jammu province so that he could also represent the case of the ignored and discriminated against people of this province, which houses almost half of the state's population. It was not for the first time that the Doordarshan ignored Jammu. It is a routine matter. The authorities in the Doordarshan, like all the Kashmiri leaders, Delhi-based think tanks, commentators and powers-that-be in New Delhi, do not regard Jammu province as part of the problem and, hence, they always ignore Jammu.
It was, however, heartening to note that both Naqvi and Behra did talk of regional imbalances and suggested that the people of Jammu and Ladakh are important factors in the political situation in the state and need to be taken on board and conciliated. Behra neither supported nor opposed the Kashmiri leaders' demands ranging from autonomy to self-rule to independence, but she did highlight the need for a fair treatment to the people of Jammu and Ladakh. As for Naqvi, he opposed the idea of the state getting more autonomy saying the state already enjoys maximum autonomy. Besides, he minced no words and asserted again and again that while Kashmir has all along been given a preferential treatment in every respect, the people of Jammu and Ladakh have never been given their legitimate due share. He also took to task the interlocutors for their remark that they would suggest an amendment in the Indian Constitution so that the demand of the Kashmiri people seeking independence from India could be discussed.
However, the problem with Naqvi and Behra was that they couldn't counter the highly biased Vice-Chancellor of Kashmir University, Riaz Punjabi, because they didn't have with them the necessary statistics indicating the extent to which Kashmir province has developed and indicating the extent to which Jammu province has been neglected. Since they didn't have the necessary official statistics with them, they couldn't do justice to the issues they raised during the debate. On the contrary, Punjabi and other Kashmiri panelist rejected out-of-hand the charge that the authorities had been according a step-motherly treatment to the people of Jammu province. In fact, Punjabi ridiculed the non-Kashmir panelists by saying that they didn't know anything and that no one could accuse the authorities in Kashmir of denying the people of Jammu province their due share in the political and economic processes of the state. So much so, he tried to create an impression that it was Kashmir, and not Jammu, which had suffered.
Had the Doordarshan ensured the participation of someone from Jammu in what could be termed as a lop-sided and Kashmir-centric debate, the likes of Punjabi would have been shown their rightful place; they would have been cornered and silenced; and they would have fled away hiding their faces. That Punjabi would take recourse to white lies in order to silence other non-Kashmiri panelists was a foregone conclusion. It is hardly necessary to point out here that it has become customary with the Kashmiri leaders, the Kashmir-based so-called objective and secular academics, commentators, lawyers and so on to depend on falsehood because they know it full well that their whole case is flawed and weak and that they have no solid facts to counter and defeat those who make their points based on facts and official statistics.
Will the authorities controlling the Doordarshan provide an opportunity to the people of Jammu province to participate in the debates on J&K it organizes from time to time and enable them to put things in perspective and neutralize the baneful influence of the vested interests in Kashmir on the Indian public opinion and the Indian law-makers? They must. Doordarshan belongs to all the Indians and the ignored, discriminated against and the persecuted communities deserve greater say in the debates it organizes.
In the meantime, the Early Times urges Punjabi and others of his ilk to have a glance at its October 26, 2010 issue. It carries a story under the caption "for the information of controversial interlocutor Padgaonkar." The story deals with glaring disparities between Jammu province and Kashmir region. Will he look at the said story and publicly acknowledge that he committed a crime by keeping the nation in the dark about the hard realities in the state? He will not and even if he does so, he will not change his views because he, like all the Kashmiri leaders and others of their ilk, just can't afford to speak the truth. The moment they speak the truth, they would be lynched by the beguiled people of Kashmir. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
