news details |
|
|
| Motivated misinformation campaign | | Another K Solution -- II | | Rustam
EARLY TIMES REPORT
Jammu, June 8: What is the operative part of the solution as suggested by Kamal Mitra Chenoy? "A possible and feasible solution would be the original Article 370 and formation of a Kashmir Council along the LOC. This council would include both Kashmirs, each given its powers and is its sovereignty would remain intact within the two existing states. The LOC should be a soft border and particularly Kashmiris should be facilitated to crossover whenever possible. The LOC should be de-militarized and patrolled by the Pakistani Rangers and the Indian Border Security Force. The army should be kept at a distance of ten kilometers from the border. In case of any violation temporary presence of the military may be allowed. The power is of the Kashmiri Council may be asymmetrical but this would be a major step in bringing about unity of the two Kashmirs."
He asserts "Of all of the major solutions suggested this seems the most workable. The Indian side should not feel that they are giving a lot. After all Article 370 in its original form was part of the Indian Constitution. What was given then could certainly be given now. Pakistan, India and the Kashmiris on both sides all seek peace, prosperity and good neighborliness. Including in this low intensity conflict, too much blood has been shed. It is time that peace building and finding workable solutions be given priority over the purchase of arms that both countries can ill-afford. Peace and compromise based on certain principles as we have laid down is the only way."
Chenoy also rules out plebiscite in the state, saying the "Pakistani position and that of several Kashmiri groups is that there should be a UN mandated plebiscite" is not realistic. "The problem with this suggestion is that the situation has changed substantially from the period when Nehru was propagating the plebiscite. The Shimla Accord of 1972 between Pakistan and India laid down that Kashmir would be a bilateral matter. More importantly, a large section of Indian Administered Kashmir do not want to merge with Pakistan, most of whom advocate Azadi in one form or another. A plebiscite would there not give representation to those Kashmiris who wanted a separate Kashmir," he says in this regard.
The refrain of Chenoy is that what he has suggested has the potential of not only forging a lasting peace in South Asia but it has also the potential of assuaging the hurt feelings of the estranged and alienated Kashmiris. Yet another refrain of his is that time has come to restore Article 370 to its original position. "Article 370 of the Indian Constitution gave massive powers to the Kashmiri state. This included a reservation of only four broad areas in the central or national list. The list included defence, foreign affairs, currency and communication. Through political manipulation the list was diluted and the original autonomy that Kashmir had were sharply reduced. Now, if there was to be an agreement between the Kashmiris in the Valley and the Indian State then Jammu and Kashmir would have much greater autonomy than before. In fact, all the central powers, defence, currency and foreign affairs are the most important. Communication, which is largely privatized, is not critical for control over Kashmir," he opines.
The upshot of his whole argument is that two causes are responsible for the prevailing unrest in Kashmir and tensions between India and Pakistan. One is the failure of the Indian State to resolve the issue taking into consideration the aspirations of Kashmiris and the Pakistani concerns and the other is "mis-governance" and "violation of human rights" of Kashmiris.
All this shows that Chenoy, like many other Indian track II operatives, holds India responsible for the whole trouble in South Asia, believes that Jammu & Kashmir is part of the partition plan and suggests that the two major stakeholders in what he calls "Kashmiri State" are Pakistan and Kashmiri Muslims -- Kashmiri Muslims because there is no reference whatever to Jammu and Ladakh in his quite lengthy essay. He has only talked about the "alienation" of Kashmiris, barring those who quit the Valley in early 1990 to escape their physical liquidation or top escape the wrath of the votaries of "nationalism" Chenoy talks about.
No sane person with a secular, objective and rational outlook would ever accept the solution Chenoy has put forth because what he has suggested is nothing but a way that would ultimately lead to the balkanization of India. Leave alone Jammu and Ladakh whom everyone has abandoned. Remember, Chenoy wants the concerns of Pakistan and the Kashmiris to be addressed by India and he also wants New Delhi to meet the financial requirements of those in Kashmir who are fighting against the Indian State. Also remember, Chenoy distorts history when he says that the Instrument of Accession limits the jurisdiction of New Delhi to "defence, foreign affairs, currency and communication." The Instrument of Accession nowhere talked about currency. (Concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
