news details |
|
|
| Interaction With Interlocutors | | Problem in Kashmir is one of “uncontested communalism,” says historian Om | |
MINCING NO WORDS
NEHA
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Feb 23: It was a strange interaction. In fact, it was an interaction of its own kind. It was an interaction during which certain things were candidly said with the condition that there could be more such interactions if certain issues were settled during the first interaction. The case in point is the February 21st quite prolonged interaction between interlocutors Dileep Padgaonkar, Radha Kumar and M M Ansari and former Maharaja Gulab Singh Chair Professor, University of Jammu, and Member, Indian Council of Historical Research, Professor Hari Om, who is also a keen watcher of J&K.
It would be desirable to quote verbatim what the Professor told the interlocutors. It is imperative in order to put things in perspective and indicate the nature of interaction. What he told the interlocutors read line this: “I fully appreciate your willingness to engage me in the dialogue process which you are spearheading on behalf of the Government of India. This appreciation is more so because I have been openly contesting the motivation of Government of India, which forced them to start the dialogue process. I have also openly questioned the very architecture of the peace process, which the Government of India has been carrying on in the state for quite some time now.”
“To be frank, I have also raised serious questions publicly about your functioning and criticized many of your statements. For example, I have taken a serious exception to your statements like ‘there are no red lines’; ‘Kashmir is a political problem that needs a political settlement’; ‘prepare a roadmap for Azadi for discussion’; ‘Indian Constitution could be amended to accommodate the Azadi demand’; and ‘Geelani and Mirwaiz are the two main stakeholders’ in the state.”
“As a matter of fact, I am fully aware of the position that you have been holding on the issue of problem in Kashmir even before you were appointed as interlocutors. And knowing that you have a perspective on Jammu and Kashmir which is in public knowledge, I am not that sure how much your personal views will prejudice your functioning as the interlocutors on behalf of Government of India.”
“I want you to appreciate my dilemma in offering my views to you as representatives of Government of India. This dilemma rises fundamentally from the impression that the Government of India has created about itself amongst those citizens in the state who hold Indian integrity and sovereignty as sacrosanct and inviolable. The Government of India has over the years presented itself as a neutral party in the entire crisis which has gripped the state. It has presented itself as an arbitrator of dispute between the nationalists in the state and the separatists. In fact, the Government of India has gradually painted itself or allowed it to be painted as a colonial power which is desperately trying to retreat from its colonial territory.”
“If the whole dialogue process is about how to effect retreat from the state of Jammu and Kashmir beguiling the people of India that it has actually protected the national interests in the state, then I have no comments or views to offer to you. In such a situation you are no more than an alien whose aim is to bring about second partition of India on communal basis. In case it is not so, then there is a clear-cut task for you which you have not even started as yet. And that task is to convince people like me that your views about the nation conform to the spirit of the Constitution of India and that you have a commitment to protect the indivisible unity of India in the state as well as protect the nation- building vision of India.”
“I have one thing clearly to state even in a situation of dilemma which I have tried to put forth in front of you and that is that a clear-cut circumstantial evidence is available in the public domain which points to the fact that the recent public mobilizations in the Kashmir Valley and the unrest got also encouraged by the perspectives which Government of India created about Jammu and Kashmir from time to time in recent years. If the Prime Minister of India publicly affirms that a solution had almost been arrived at between India and Pakistan on the vexed issue of Jammu and Kashmir, then it does not need anybody else to prompt further the separatists to rise and exert pressures to push forward the process which got derailed because of the dethronement of Pervez Musharraf and subsequently by the horrific 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks. Prime Minister has taken a position that neighbours cannot be changed is a recipe for a surrender. Are we actually witnessing unfolding of this surrender and is your appointment a continuity of the same policy of surrender? In such a situation do you expect anybody in the state to come forward and express views and give suggestions, which can salvage the national interests in the State?”
“In the end, I would want to say that there is no problem of Jammu and Kashmir. It’s problem in Kashmir. The problem is neither constitutional nor a political one. It is basically a problem of uncontested Kashmiri Muslim leadership’s communalism. So far, the Government of India has tried to address it by incremental surrenders or by creating a process of circumventing it. The Government of India has failed squarely if at all it ever had the intention of defeating separatism. The path of retrieval is, however, clear enough for all of us to see and traverse with determination. Patriotic citizens in Jammu and Kashmir will not allow second partition of India and surrender to separatists operating from within the Government and outside. What the Kashmiri separatists and Pakistan are demanding is utterly unacceptable.”
“However, thee are several issues which need a serious discussion but these could be discussed only after you convince persons like me that there would be no surrender and no move to pander to communalism and separatism.”
What does all this show? It shows it was a very, very candid interaction. There was no mincing of words. It would be seen if what transpired between Om and the interlocutors would have any impact on the latter and the dialogue between him and the latter would continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
