news details |
|
|
| BAJ demands CM from Jammu, advocates full integration & opposes autonomy & self-rule | | | STARK REALITY
RUSTAM
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Apr 28: The Bar Association Jammu (BAJ) not only demanded Chief Minister from Jammu province and vehemently opposed the idea of the state getting more autonomy or self-rule but it also took up several other issues with the interlocutors, all throwing ample light on disparities between Kashmir and Jammu, thus establishing that BAJ has been watching with vigilance all the developments in the state, which have adversely impacted the people of Jammu province.
For example, the BAJ leadership brought to the notice of the interlocutors the fact that while the people of Jammu province have been contributing to the state exchequer revenue to the tune of 70 per cent annually, it is Kashmir that is being allocated more funds for developmental activities. To make its point the BAJ leadership referred to the allegations leveled by two members of the State Finance Commission – Swami Raj Sharma (Jammu) and Sonam Bawa (Ladakh). Sharma and Dawa had last year accused the chairman of the State Finance Commission of not presenting a true picture of facts to the state government and suppressing the fact that the people of Jammu province had all along received a step-motherly treatment from the government.
Besides the BAJ leadership drew the attention of the interlocutors to the fact that the Kashmir-centric and highly biased successive governments in the state did not implement the recommendations as made by state government-appointed commissions like Gajendra Gadkar (1967), Wazir Commission (1980) and so on and if at all a few recommendations were accepted, these were implemented in a wrong way. The BAJ leadership did make a very valid point. Take, far instance, the manner in which the recommendations of the Wazir Commission were thrown to the wind. The Wazir Commission had recommended the creation of three new districts of Samba, Reasi and Kishtwar in Jammu province and one new district of Bandipora in Kashmir, but the state government set up eight districts, four each in Jammu province and Kashmir, thus negating the very spirit of the report and maintaining the irrational status quo. Status quo in the sense that Jammu had six districts and Kashmir as many before the creation of eight more districts in the state. The people of Jammu province had fought for years and made sacrifices to persuade the state government to create more districts in the province. Their plea was that Jammu province was not only bigger in size as compared to Kashmir but its nature of terrain was very difficult and treacherous and that the creation of more administrative units alone could help them get their normal works done and executed.
Other issues which were taken up by the BAJ leadership with the interlocutors included adequate representation to the Jammu youth in the professional and technical colleges (the share of Jammu is no more than 10 to 15 per cent), excessive representation of Kashmir and under representation of Jammu in the vital service sector (the number of employees of Kashmir origin is almost three times more that of Jammu province), acute unemployment problem in Jammu province (rate of unemployment in Jammu province is over 69 per cent as compared to less than 30 per cent in Kashmir), neglect of tourism in Jammu province, inadequate representation of Jammu in the high court as far as the appointment of judges is concerned (only one judge belongs to Jammu province and most of them are from Kashmir, almost 700 per cent more as compared to Jammu), failure of the state and central governments to set up the sanctioned Central University in Jammu, disparity in wages between Kashmir and Jammu and so on.
All this shows that the BAJ took up the cause of Jammu as well as the national cause with the interlocutors in a very effective manner. It’s no wonder then that the interlocutors had acknowledged that their meeting with the BAJ leadership was quite fruitful. It is hoped that the interlocutors would take into serious consideration the BAJ’s viewpoint, which is based on hard facts and ground realities, while giving a concrete shape to their report and refrain from suggesting – of course, at the behest of New Delhi – more autonomy for the state, bordering on virtual sovereignty, and a system that further empowers the already over-empowered Kashmir and throws in the lot of Jammu with the oppressive, arrogant, unreasonable and even separatist and communal Kashmiri leadership. (Concluded)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
