news details |
|
|
| Motivated misinformation campaign | | Another K Solution - I | | Rustam
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, June 7: Another Kashmir solution: The Road to peace in Kashmir." What is it? "The conflict between India and Pakistan is not territorial"; it is "conflict between two contending nationalisms -- one for one nation theory (read Indian nationalism) the second for a two nation theory (read Pakistani nationalism)." Since "nationalist ideologies are very difficult to resolve and Kashmir has been held hostage to these two nationalisms", therefore, any resolution all this problem will require political will and the maximum compromise possible."
Who has come out with this solution? Kamal Mitra Chenoy of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), which has produced hundreds and hundreds of mercenaries whose single-point agenda is to distort history, feed and preach falsehood, flirt with separatists of all varieties, wreck the Indian State and mint easy money. They suffer from an extreme sense of inferiority complex and they hate everything connected with Indian civilization. They are India-bashers. They do not consider India as a nation. They consider India as a congregation of nations, with each nation having the right to secede. They call themselves secularists, but actually they are communalists, dis-integrationists and irrational and they believe in anarchy, chaos, disorder and conflict between communities and classes because they see in communal harmony, peaceful co-existence and normality their own destruction. The most horrible aspect of the whole situation is the baneful influence they have on our policy-planners in New Delhi.
That they flirt with and promote the cause of Pakistan and ardent believers in the concept of two-nation, which consumed millions of lives and resulted in displacement of population and rape on an unprecedented scale in 1947, and that they distort history and feed and preach falsehood could be seen from Chenoy's two formulations: One, "when India was being partitioned, there were two contending nationalisms. The Pakistanis believed in the two-nation theory -- that is all the Muslim majority areas, which were contiguous, should be part of Pakistan. Pakistan's two-nation theory was that Muslims irrespective of their physical situation in greater India should be in Pakistan (e.g. East Pakistan)." Two, "during the instrument of accession there were disputes over whether the Maharaja of Kashmir had acceded to India. This led to a border skirmish between Pakistan and India in 1947."
These formulations have no basis whatever. In fact, Chenoy's formulations are based on the false propaganda being taken recourse to by those who wish to promote communalism, separatism and intolerance and break India into smithereens. Take, for example, his first formulation which is nothing but a distortion of history. He shamelessly tries to convince us that the Muslim-majority Jammu & Kashmir was part of the partition plan. It's not true. Jammu & Kashmir was one of the 560-odd princely states, which were not part of the partition plan. The Indian Independence Act of 1947 had empowered the rulers of these princely states to take final decision on the political future of their respective states. It was the 11 British Indian provinces which were part of the partition plan and they included Madras, Bombay, Bihar, Orissa, Central Provinces, the United Provinces, the North West Frontier Province, Bengal, Assam, Punjab and Sind. It was the British India that was partitioned and not the princely India. The princes acceded their states to either Indian Dominion or Pakistani Dominion.
The second formulation of Chenoy is also flawed. He says "during the instrument of accession there were disputes over whether the Maharaja of Kashmir had acceded to India" and that it was this that "led to a border skirmish between Pakistan and India in 1947." The fact of the matter is that Pakistan had launched attack on Jammu and Kashmir with a view to forcibly annexing it days before the Maharaja acceded his state to India. He acceded to India only on October 26, 1947. As for the Indian Army, they landed in Kashmir a day later to get the aggression vacated and it was the fundamental duty of India to protect its citizens and defend its borders. It is, however, a different story that the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru blundered and announced a ceasefire to keep Sheikh Abdullah of National Conference on his right side. Sheikh had no love lost for the people of the areas called "Azad Kashmir" and Gilgit-Baltistan because ethnically they were not Kashmiris. Had there been no ceasefire the position today would have been totally different and the Dogras of Jammu and the people of the so-called Azad Kashmir would have been ruling the state, as they were in majority. There existed between these people and the Kashmiri Muslims led by Sheikh what is called "historical antagonism" and the cause was the Sheikh and his brand of politics. (To be continued) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
