news details |
|
|
| Self-rule fundamentally bad and retrograde - I | | | NEHA
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Feb 9: People's Democratic Party leaders have unleashed a no-holds-barred propaganda blitz to enlist the people's support in favour of their self-rule doctrine. On Tuesday, they again reiterated their stand. They sought to convince everyone that self-rule doctrine not only has the potential of defusing tensions between India and Pakistan, and ending the ongoing violence in Kashmir and resolving the Kashmir issue, but it has also the potential of ending regional tensions in the state as the doctrine has inbuilt mechanism that prevents any region of the state from dominating and exploiting another.
It can be said without any hesitation that the self-rule doctrine is fundamentally bad, reactionary, retrograde and highly injurious to the vital interests of India and its people in Jammu & Kashmir. It is nothing but a replica of the two-nation theory that resulted into the communal partition of India in 1947 and consumed millions of lives.
The self rule doctrine, like the greater autonomy doctrine of the National Conference, means another charter of bondage as far as the people of Jammu and Ladakh are concerned, recognition of communalism and extremism, great concession to terrorists, ability of Pakistan to share equal powers with India in Jammu and Kashmir, negation of all that the Indian nation did during the past six decades to integrate the state into India and dismember of balkanization of India. It also means the emergence of a system under which New Delhi would have no power whatsoever in the state. Self-rule, like greater autonomy, means the state's independence and a return to the medieval ages known for barbarism, oppression, intolerance, conversions and destruction of Indian symbols of civilization.
This is no exaggeration. The implications of self-rule suggest that there is no fundamental difference between what People's Democratic Party leaders are advocating and what Islamabad is seeking to achieve. I will quote verbatim what former Chief Minister (who led the Indian delegation to the United States in November 2006) said at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington DC, on November 12. He said: "In all these circumstances - Indian, Pakistani, international - the only view-point that has not unfortunately been adequately highlighted is the people of Jammu & Kashmir (read Kashmiri Muslims, especially Sunni Muslims). There is, of course, the argument for the inclusion of the people of Jammu & Kashmir into the resolution process to ensure that India and Pakistan do not walk away from the bilateral talks. The problem is that the heterogeneity of views in Jammu and Kashmir has become an easy excuse for their exclusion".
He further said: "Conceptually, the challenge in Jammu & Kashmir is to integrate the region without disturbing the extent of sovereign authority over delimited territorial space. There is no need to negate the significance of the LoC as territorial divisions, but it is imperative to negate its acquired and imputed manifestation of state competition for power, prestige, or an imagined historical identity. The idea is to retain the former and change the latter. Therein lies the key to the solution of Jammu & Kashmir dispute." The meaning is clear. How ridiculous, provocative, dangerous and unsettling was this formulation!
The former Chief Minister did not stop here. He added: "The operational challenge in Jammu and Kashmir is to establish innovative institutional arrangements that have a political, economic and security character. The two countries - India and Pakistan - have to resolve the very difficult problem of 'domestic' integration within a split international political and economic structure. Our basic premise is that the search for solution to the issue of Jammu & Kashmir is the search for an inter-nation state, but still has a supra-national basis. To put issue in analytical terms, we have to find ways and means of 'sharing sovereignty' (with Pakistan). This makes it 'more than alliance' (where alliance means that a group of nations forms a selective agreement without the need of giving up relevant pieces of sovereignty). In view of the past history, the stated positions and the emotional surcharge, a one-point-one-time solution for resolution of the conflict is a near impossibility. What is required is a sequence of measures, which would resolve the situation. These initiatives need to be less dramatic and insightful. What is needed is a practical step-by-step extrication of the state from the tragic muddle. But it should not be a matter merely of atmospherics, either." (To be concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
