news details |
|
|
| Has the BJP ultimately reviewed its stand on Kashmir? | | | NEHA
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Feb 5: Has the BJP finally reviewed its stand on the March 1999 agreement on Jammu and Kashmir, reached between the then Indian Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, and his Pakistani counterpart, Sartaj Aziz, at Colombo? (The agreement, among other things, had suggested plebiscite in the state on regional/district basis, maximum autonomy to Kashmir and its adjoining areas and division of Jammu along river Chenab.) If one goes by what the BJP national general secretary and Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, said the other day in New Delhi, one can say yes the BJP has reviewing its stand on its earlier position. Earlier, on February five also, he had expressed almost identical views. (February 5 was observed as Kashmir Solidarity Day in Kashmir and Pakistan.)
What did Arun Jaitley say while addressing media persons? He hit the nail on the head and clearly accused the Congress led-UPA Government of "offering talks with Pakistan on a day when Islamabad was parading its anti-India Jehadis" and described the offer of talks as "an abject surrender". He, along with the party's national spokesperson, Prakash Javadekar, said "India's offer for talks with Pakistan is also an admission of Pakistan's position on (the July 2009) Sharm-el-Sheikh statement and not the understanding of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that future talks would be about terror as stated before Parliament".
So much so, Arun Jaitley asked the Prime Minister to give a categorical assurance to the nation that "there will be no compromise on Indian territory in Jammu and Kashmir and took the Congress-led UPA Government to task for buckling "under international pressure when anti-India United Jehad Council that includes representatives from Jamat-ud-Dawa were paraded in Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir".
He did not stop here. He went on to express "apprehensions" and say: "The Indian offer for talks would effectively mean a composite dialogue (read Kashmir), irrespective of an assurance to check terror infrastructure from the Pakistani side. This would also mean dilution of Indian control over Kashmir Valley and Muslim-dominated areas of Jammu and acceptance of joint-control mechanism, as mooted by former Pakistan President Gen Pervez Musharraf". It needs to be underlined that what he opposed on February 5 was what his party had virtually agreed to do - a fact, later on, candidly admitted by the Vajpayee's National Security Advisor, Brijesh Mishra.
Prakash Javadekar also did not lag behind. He asserted, and rightly, that "India's Foreign Minister, S.M. Krishna, has diluted the country's stand when he said India expected a few steps from other side on its demand of credible action against terror outfits by Pakistan. Now it is (an) acceptance of the position that terror and dialogue can coexist". He was right for another reason: The Pakistani Prime Minister has openly announced that he cannot give an assurance to India that there will not repeat of the 26/11-line terrorist attack in India.
Former Deputy Prime Minister and BJP veteran LK Advani took almost a similar line and opposed the move of the Congress-led UPA Government to resume the dialogue process with Pakistan, a rogue and failed Pakistan. He asked the Union Government: "Is it USA behind Indo-Pak talks?" The government's decision to start Foreign Secretary-level talks with Pakistan was the upshot of a powerful nudge from Washington, Advani said. "The question people have been asking in a more straightforward manner is…is its (India's) latest U-turn on dialogue the upshot of a powerful nudge from Washing?", the former Deputy Prime Minister has written in his blog.
Again, Advani reiterated his opposition to the Union Government's move to restart the dialogue process with Pakistan and asserted that it is not desirable considering the highly hostile attitude of the belligerent Pakistan.
One cannot but endorse the line the BJP has taken. Similarly, one cannot but agree with what LK Advani said. This should be the line, which was clear, unambiguous and which the Indian nation wants each and every political party in the country to take so that the Indian unity and integrity is maintained and the Pakistani evil designs are comprehensively defeated.
One can only hope and pray that The BJP stick to the line its leaders publicly took and do every thing possible to prevent the Congress-led UPA Government from treading a path it has decided to tread overlooking its dangerous fall-out.
The response the Indian offer for talks evoked in Pakistan does indicate that the Pakistan's aggressive posturing has paid dividends. The cheerful and jubilant Pakistani Prime Minister has even gone to the extent of saying that "India agreed to hold talks with Pakistan under international pressure". It is regrettable that the Indian Foreign Office has ignored what the Pakistani Prime Minister has said and again stated that "its proposal to have Foreign Secretary-level talks with Pakistan is a calculated initiative to 'unlock' the dialogue process".
It is obvious that what the Indian Foreign Office has said is nothing but a response to the line BJP has taken and it is highly disturbing. Now that the Indian Foreign Office has come out with a response, it is incumbent on the part of the BJP to up its ante and mobilize public opinion against the New Delhi's game plan so that no harm is done to the paramount national interests in Jammu and Kashmir, unity and integrity of the country is maintained and anti-India and communal and separatist forces are comprehensively defeated. The BJP cannot afford any kind of complacency. It has to establish that what it said the other day was what it shall pursue with single-minded devotion and not allow the Congress-led UPA Government to do anything that has the potential of enabling Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists to push forward their pernicious agenda. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
