news details |
|
|
| Jammu & Kashmir government "inefficient" & "insensitive", says Padgaonkar | | | NEHA
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Dec 18: Dilip Padgaonkar denied yesterday that he had made any negative statement against the Omar Abdullah-led government or that he did not say that his government was "inefficient" and "insensitive." "I wish to state categorically that all those remarks are fabricated from end to end. I have never uttered those words. I would only suggest you to have a look at the interview conducted by Saeed Naqvi and then judge for yourself. You are a responsible media and you draw your own conclusions," he said when asked by reporters to explain his remarks. However, the transcript of the excerpts, where he referred to the functioning of the Jammu and Kashmir Government lay bare the disparities between what he said and the actual position. One can simply log on: NewsX.com_withsaeed or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_yVMGClO6s and see for himself what exactly was the meaning of what he told Saeed Naqvi. Everything is in public domain.
What about other statements he made during the interview? Leave aside his reported negative statement regarding the National Conference's autonomy doctrine positive statement about the People's Democratic Party's self-rule formula. What has he to say about his other highly controversial formulation? His formulation: "Kashmir is a mixed problem. It is one of geo-political circumstances and it demands political will." Again, what has he to say about his "no red lines" assertion?
The meaning of what Padgaonkar has been saying ever since his appointment has been clear and unambiguous. He does say that the solution to the "problem" has to be acceptable to the people of all the three regions of the state, but the recommendations he and his other colleagues have been making on a daily basis leave no one in any doubt that their intentions are not really noble and that they are playing with dangerous tools. He and his colleagues have been consistently talking about confidence-building measures, but there is nothing whatever in their suggestions for Jammu and Ladakh.
Padgaonkar, in particular, needs to explain what he means by geo-political circumstances and political will. Similarly, he needs to inform the nation what he means by "no red lines. Does he want a solution that compromises the nation's stand on the territorial integrity of India? Does he want a solution that empowers Pakistan to have a real and an effective say in the Indian Jammu and Kashmir? What he means by a political settlement? He has to explain his formulations. For, the Indian nation is not prepared to accept any solution that is aimed at tinkering with or diluting the Indian sovereignty in the state or that is aimed at driving the state away from the constitutional framework of India. He should remember that he has in the person of Radha Kumar an interlocutor who has written extensively on the self-rule doctrine and appreciated it. It is obvious that he and Kumar are on the same page.
As for the Indian nation, it believes that Jammu and Kashmir was, is and shall ever remain part of India; the Indian Constitution also says so very emphatically; the Indian nation believes that even if you withdraw or dilute the AFSPA, the Kashmiri separatists would not call off their separatist agitation; the Indian nation believes that any concession to terrorism would not bring peace to the state, rather it would further embolden the terrorists and extremists; the Indian nation believes that the "legitimate aspirations" of the Kashmiri leaders simply mean secession from India and this is utterly unacceptable; the Indian nation believes that Pakistan would never allow peace to return to the state because it is in the interest of Pakistan to keep the pot boiling in the Valley; the Indian nation believes that grant of autonomy or self-rule to the state would mean balkanization of India and this eventually it is prepared to averted at any cost; and, finally, the Indian nation wants New Delhi to tell the Kashmiri leadership that no government in India would ever have the mandate to change the status of the Kashmir Valley.
What, then, to do? Padgaonkar and his colleagues, who already stand discredited in the eyes of the people of the state, particularly the people of Jammu and Ladakh and other patriotic sections of society in the state, have to recognize the fact that the State of Jammu and Kashmir is an unnatural formation and that it can no longer be maintained as one organic unit. In other words, they should come out with a solution that not only trifurcates the state into Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh States, but also bifurcates the Kashmir Valley in order to accommodate the socio-cultural and politico-economic aspirations of the internally displaced Kashmiri Hindus. This is the only option left. Since Padgaonkar has repeatedly asserted that there are no red lines for them, it would not be difficult for him and his colleagues to put forth some such suggestion. If they think that they would impose the will of the Kashmiri separatists or the will of Islamabad on the non-Muslim minorities in the state as well as Jammu province and Ladakh region, then it can be said that they are living in a world of the past. (Concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
