news details |
|
|
| Trifurcation of J&K the only durable solution, says APHC leader Bhat | | With A Condition -- I | | Rustam
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, May 25: "In early 50's (Sir Owen) Dixon proposed division of the state (J&K) in his plan, while in 1996 (read 2002) Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in conformity with the Dixon's stream of thought proposed trifurcation of the state into three geo-political entities of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh. The Dixon Plan assigned Ladakh to India, the Northern Areas and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) to Pakistan, split Jammu between the two, and envisaged a plebiscite in the Kashmir Valley…The Valley has a unique identity, history and culture and its people are having a collective political personality, which in no way identifies itself with neither India nor Pakistan. Let us recall (the past). Considering only the present and forsaking the past is to take a very narrow view of the reality. For to be careful of the present without being informed of the past is to have a deceptive view of things."
"Now let us reconcile with the ground realities which simply suggest that Jammu is not part of our struggle, so is not Ladakh, there is a huge constituency in Jammu asking for separate state and we can't drag them…Jammu as a region identifies itself with union of India so is the Ladakh but people of Kashmir, true to the sense of history, at no point of time identify themselves with India. Then what is the way out? To me, division of state into three geo-political entities is the natural solution. But in this scheme, the division should be on regional basis and one should not mix-up religion with a political problem. Divide the state into three distinct geo-political identities and make Kashmir a free economic zone."
"Let both India and Pakistan declare Kashmir as a free economic zone. Let us use the corridor of free trade to free Kashmiris from the twin nightmares of suppression and subjugation. If Kashmir becomes a free trade zone political tension between India and Pakistan will ease. Free trade in Kashmir may well be the gateway for a South Asian Union on the lines of the European Union where the fault-lines of religion, language, region, ethnicity and caste may get eased into the twin ideas of free market and equitable development. Let Kashmir be a free trade zone where China, Pakistan, Central Asia and rest of the world can meet Indian business and industry. In nutshell make Kashmir Switzerland of India and Pakistan and the problem is over."
"Let us be honest to ourselves and to our people, it is for them (UN Security Council), whether they do (implement its resolutions) it or not. But it requires approval of both India and Pakistan, so it is a difficult proposition. We should come out of it and search for alternatives. In 1962, ZA Bhuttu and Swaram Singh as foreign ministers of their countries did talking for about nine months. What were they talking? They were discussing alternatives. In Shimla Agreement (of 1972), it (Kashmir) was declared a bilateral issue, what does that mean. That simply means that two countries were exploring options other than the UN resolutions to resolve the issue. When you chose to talking you leave behind UN resolutions, that is it. Let us not put blinkers on our heads, lets reconcile with the ground realities and look for alternatives acceptable to all. What is acceptable is honourable and what is honourable is durable".
"When India and Pakistan do talking, that simply means they are looking for alternatives. There is a huge constituency in Jammu for separate state, you can't wish away. Some time back there was an idea floated for regional plebiscite that again contradicts UN resolutions on Kashmir. So you are virtually working on trifurcation plan on regional basis…Remember, I talk of division on regional basis, religion is not and should not be the basis, it has nothing to do with religion. It is not a religious issue, it is a political issue. Don't mix-up religion but never ignore it either, let us be realistically truthful, if you mix-up the two you can spill a total disaster."
(If the) "Government of India (doesn't) accept the division of the state," then come to General Pervez Musharraf's four-point proposal. You have to come to talking, you have to think out of box, you have to accept something which takes care of aspirations of all the concerned…Elections are no solution to the problem. India is holding elections in Jammu and Kashmir for last sixty or seventy years, you have as many as thirteen elections to both the state assembly and the parliament but the dispute is still hanging fire."
Who has expressed these views? None other than former APHC chairman Abdhul Gani Bhat. When did he express these views? He expressed these views only yesterday while talking to a reporter in Srinagar. Should what Bhat said be endorsed? (To be continued) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
