news details |
|
|
| No comparison between Kashmir unrest and Egypt revolt | | Yasin Malik’s Complaint | | STARK REALITY
RUSTAM
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Mar 4: JKLF leader Yasin Malik is not happy with the international community. In fact, he has accused the international community of adopting one yardstick for Kashmir and another for Egypt and other disturbed countries in the Muslim world. He lodged his complaint on March 2 during his meeting with the two-member delegation from the British High Commission in India. The members of the delegation were First Secretary Victoria Vitfot and Political Advisor Sushil Erol. They met him at Srinagar.
After the meeting, Malik expressed the view that the British Government could come forward to put pressure on the Government of India in order to resolve the “Kashmir problem.” His argument was that it was the responsibility of the British Government to intervene and resolve the issue because it had “declared Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory when Great Britain quit India.” His argument appears as flawed as it was misleading. The British Government never said at that time that Jammu and Kashmir was a disputed territory. The British Government knew it full well that accession of the state to India was as per the provisions of the Indian Independence Act of 1947. However, one can understand the motive of Malik. After all, Malik and other separatists have been saying so since long, but with no result because their whole formulation is based on falsehood.
However, the most striking aspect of his discussion with the two-member delegation was his complaint that the international community had failed to adopt a uniform approach to the unrest in Kashmir and revolts in Egypt or Libya. In other words, he lamented the indifferent attitude of England and other countries towards Kashmir.
What exactly did he tell the delegation? He told them that whenever people in the countries like Egypt and Libya come on the roads to register their protests against their respective regimes and demand recognition of their rights, the entire world supports the protesting people, but when the people of Kashmir do the same, the international community watches these developments as a mute spectator and keeps its eyes closed.
It is obvious that Malik made a wrong comparison. In Egypt, the people revolted against the 32-year-old dictatorial regime of Hosni Mubarak and demanded the establishment of a popularly-elected government. They did not revolt against the country. Nor did they ask for the merger of their country with another country. In Libya and countries like Sudan, Algeria, Iran, Jordan and Bahrain also, the people are on the roads and organizing massive demonstrations against the despotic regimes. And, if the civilized world supports such movements aimed at empowering the people, it is a welcome step. The support of the international community for the people’s movement in these countries needs to be viewed in this context only.
In Kashmir, the situation is different. The people are for peace and tranquility and the Kashmiri leadership against India. The latter is not struggling for empowerment or for democratic rights. It is not struggling against the Kashmiri-dominated regime. It is instigating the innocent youth and gullible Kashmiris against India and seeking dismemberment of the country on religious grounds. In other words, in Kashmir, it is the politics of secession the leadership indulges in, and the countries like Egypt and Libya, it is the politics of people’s empowerment that has started dotting the political scenes of their respective countries, and hence, no comparison between the two.
Had the leaders like Malik organized movements against corruption, mal-administration and for the promotion of democratic and secular values, the attitude of the international community would have been altogether different. It would be too much expect any support from the civilized world in favour of divisive and communally-motivated movement. The moment the likes of Yasin Malik would renounce their separatist ideology and organize movements based on democratic and economic issues, they would see for themselves the change in the attitude of the civilized world and the change would indeed be very radical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
