news details |
|
|
| Fate of J&K can't be decided at UN: Nayar | | Mufti, Farooq essentially pro-establishment men | | B L KAK
NEW DELHI, NOV. 4: "The fate of Kashmir cannot be decided at the UN". This is the message from India's former High Commissioner to the UK, Kuldip Nayar, to former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed. Commenting on the Mufti's visit to the United Nations to present a case for Kashmir's self-rule, Nayar says that the Kashmir leader should know by this time that "the fate of Kashmir cannot be decided at the UN".
"Even Pakistan realises this", Nayar said, adding: "It is India's Parliament which has to vote on whatever the settlement". Kuldip Nayar, who is a well-known political commentator and former Rajya Sabha member, maintained in his latest write-up: Mufti Sayeed should have begun with the Indian Parliament which he has served for many years as a member. According to Nayar, Mufti Sayeed's speech at the UN may get a mention in a few newspapers.
But how does that make any difference, Nayar has asked. Mufti Sayeed is the esprit de corps of the People's Democratic Party (PDP). The PDP is sharing power in Jammu and Kashmir. All the more reason for Kuldip Nayar to argue that if the Mufti believes so strongly about his proposition of self-rule, he should threaten to walk out of the coalition if it is not accepted. Nayar's write-up on the tangled skein of Kashmir politics has also made a pointed reference to another former J&K Chief Minister, Farooq Abdullah.
Stating that the stance by elderly Farooq Abdullah and Mufti Mohammad Sayeed is like quicksand, Nayar has remarked: "They stand for one thing today and another tomorrow. They are critical of New Delhi when they are the greatest beneficiary. They have been part and parcel of the establishment even though they have been out of government. Abdullah's son was a minister in the Union government, while Mufti has been the Central Home Minister. Lately, both Abdullah and Mufti have been bizarre in their pronouncement as if they are trying to gain the ground which they had lost to their opponents. Their statements are whimsical. They do not seem to realise that they lose their credibility still further when they attack India".
Kuldip Nayar has cited an apt example this regard: Farooq Abdullah has criticised New Delhi for the death penalty to Mohammad Afzal Guru that the Supreme Court of India has endorsed. He has warned that India would "go up in flames" and that the terrorists would destroy relations between the Hindus and the Muslims. Nayar says: "I am aware that Abdullah's rhetoric gets better of him. Many years ago, I complained to Shaikh Abdullah about his son's speech at Aligarh. The Shaikh himself was worried because he had decided to nominate him as his successor".
Nayar adds: "True, Abdullah has matured a lot since. But he still gets carried away by sudden spurts of emotion, as it happened on a TV network the other day. I do not know whether he pleased the Kashmiris but he disappointed his admirers in Delhi and elsewhere. It is difficult to say what will be the fate of Afzal. I, for one, have argued that capital punishment should be abolished. But so long as India does not do that the fate of Afzal will depend on the President of India. Yet, for Abdullah to say that India would go up in flames if Afzal was hanged shows that he does not appreciate the inherent strength of his own country".
Nayar is not incorrect as he points out that the problem with both Farooq Abdullah and Mufti Sayeed is that they have no hard and fast view on Kashmir. They are trying their best to come back into reckoning in the State. But they cannot easily rub off their pro-establishment image. Nayar's loaded comment: Even after spending 12 years in Indian jails, Shaikh Abdullah could not regain the old affection of the Kashmiris. Farooq Abdullah and Mufti have not spent even a day in jail.
Equally significant is Nayar's point of view :Although Farooq Abdullah and Mufti Sayeed have expressed disappointment over the pace of agreement on Kashmir, they are essentially pro-establishment men who even when angry are not taken seriously. And Nayar's advice to the two leaders: "Now that the talks between Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan are to begin, Abdullah and Mufti can play a role, not by criticising New Delhi but making it understand that the Valley remains alienated to the last person due to human rights violations".
According to Kuldip Nayar, Farooq Abdullah and Mufti Sayeed can never take the place of Yasin Malik, Shabir Shah or Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. "But they can say that Jammu and Kashmir joined the Indian Union on the understanding that the state would be supreme in all matters, except foreign affairs, defence and communications and that New Delhi has usurped other subjects", Nayar has said.
And Nayar's recomendation: The LoC can be converted into a soft border to make it irrelevant for the people of Jammu and Kashmir and those in Kashmir and northern parts under Pakistan. Why should President General Pervez Musharraf put emphasis on the joint control of certain subjects? It is for people living in the two Kashmirs to decide. Islamabad should first remove the military brass from Kashmir on its side and transfer to it the same powers that New Delhi has done. Any other arrangement between New Delhi and Islamabad will amount to putting the cart before the horse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
