news details |
|
|
| OIC terms Indian J&K as Indian-occupied-Kashmir | | | Rustam
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, June 26: The charge of JKNPP chairman Bhim Singh that it is the Congress that messed up things in Kashmir and has created a situation that has enabled the Islamic countries, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) and Kashmiri separatists to raise question about the political status of Jammu & Kashmir. Bhim Singh is absolutely right. In fact, what Bhim Singh said is what former Jammu & Kashmir Governor Jagmohan believes in.
It would be appropriate to quote Jagmohan to prove the point that is the Congress which is the mother of all troubles in Kashmir. In his latest political essay "Nehru and Kashmir", Jagmohan wrote thus: "While Nehru's personal and poetic attachment to the Valley fascinated me, I was often dismayed by the series of mistakes he made in handling the Kashmir issue...The first mistake was made when Nehru did not object to the contents of Mountbatten's letter of October 27, 1947, to the Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir, accepting the accession of his state to India. This letter should have been on the same lines as the letters sent to the rulers of other princely states which acceded to India. But here Mountabatten unnecessarily added: 'It is my government's wish that as soon as the law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of invaders, the question of the state's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.' This mistake was rendered all the more serious by inclusion of the words 'plebiscite under the United Nations auspices' in Nehru's radio broadcast to the nation on October 28."
Jagmohan further wrote: "Taking the case to the United Nations on January 1, 1948, was yet another mistake. It was compounded by filing the complaint under Chapter VI, and not Chapter VII, of the United Nations Charter. While Chapter VII of the Charter deals with acts of aggression, Chapter VI (Article 34 and 35) merely enables the Security Council to recommend 'appropriate procedures and methods of adjustment for the specific settlement of dispute.' The mistake enabled the Security Council to expand the scope of the case and resolve that 'the problem had to be treated apart from the prospects of the final settlement of the dispute."
Enforcing ceasefire at the behest of Sheikh Abdullah by the Indian Prime Minister was, according to Jagmohan, another mistake. In this regard, he wrote: "Agreeing to the 'ceasefire' on January 1, 1949, when the Indian forces were in a position to throw out the raiders and Pakistani troops from the state, was another addition to Nehru's misjudgments. But the most grievous of all the errors was the error of not understanding Sheikh Abdullah's hidden ambition to carve out an independent Sheikhdom for himself and his coterie. Most of the objective observers of the time had sensed that Abdullah was playing his own game. As recorded in his book, Witness To An Era, Frank Moraes had, as early as 1951, noted: 'Power had gone to Abdullah's head…He struck me as a highly egocentric individual…He talked disdainfully of New Delhi…I have a feeling that even at that time his mind was moving towards independence for the Valley of Srinagar, with himself as the Kashmiri equivalent of the Grand Mogul (read Mughal)."
Yet another mistake made by Nehru in handling Kashmir was the incorporation of Article 370 in the Indian Constitution. "But Nehru paid little attention to such assessments; instead, he went on agreeing to all sorts of demands made by Abdullah, from the incorporation of Article 370 in the Constitution of India to the flying of a separate flag for the state. Al this whetted Abdullah's appetite for power and he started using the term 'full autonomy' as euphemism for independence," Jagmohan wrote in this regard.
Jogmahoan didn't stop here. He went on to write: "The inner layers of his (Abdullah's) politics of deception and duplicity acquired larger dimensions when he secretly got in touch with senior representatives of the Western powers to seek support for an independent Kashmir. The report, September 1950, of Loy Henderson, the United States Ambassador to India, should leave no one in any doubt about it. Henderson recorded: 'In discussing future Kashmir, Abdullah was vigorous that it should be independent.' On May 3, 1953, Adlai Stevenson came to Srinagar and had a long meeting with Sheikh Abdullah. Soon thereafter, a map alluding to the independent status of the Valley, appeared in the New York Times."
The operative part of Jagmohan's latest political essay on Kashmir, among other things, read like this: "Nehru left a legacy of a poet whose idealism could not be harmonized with the Valley's politics of deception and intrigue."
What Jagmohan wrote and what Bhim Singh said the other day should clinch the whole issue once for all and establish that the nation is paying through its nose for the mistakes committed by Nehru and those who succeeded him, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. None of them ever considered Jammu & Kashmir as an integral part of India to the same extent as other states of the Union. The situation has climaxed to the point that when Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister rakes up the issue of accession/merger, the Union Home Minister and External Affairs Minister take no time in endorsing the Chief Minister.
Hence, don't blame OIC, Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists when they describe the Indian Jammu & Kashmir as "Indian occupied territory." New Delhi should be blamed. Those who are managing the Indian foreign policy should be blamed. The moral of the story is that things are not inspiring from India. The very fact that Pakistan could manage a separate session on Jammu and Kashmir on June 23 at Islamabad established that New Delhi could surrender anytime or could barter away the paramount sovereign interests. (Concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
