news details |
|
|
| Demand for Union Territory in Ladakh | | Issue of empowerment -- II | | Rustam
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, July 11: The operative part of the communication/memorandum submitted by the LBA to the Prime Minister of India read: "Ladakh is not prepared to go to Pakistan whatever the result of the plebiscite may be." The communication also said: "We seek the bosom of that gracious mother (India) to receive more nutriments for growth to our full stature in every way. She has given us what we prize above all other things - our religion and culture. The Ashoka wheel on her flag, symbol of goodwill for all humanity, and her concern for her cultural children, calls us irresistibly. Will the great mother refuse to take to her arms one of her weakest and most forlorn and depressed children - a child whom filial love impels to respond to the call?"
Unhappy with Sheikh Abdullah
Ever since, the Ladakhis have been consistently demanding segregation from Kashmir and struggling for Union Territory status, in vain. The Government of India, instead of meeting their genuine demand, has forced them to suffer at the hands of the Kashmiri leadership and the result has been an all-round degeneration of the Ladakhis. "The Government of India", in the words of the LUTF, "made us to be governed by Kashmiris during these decades to our utter ruin. In the post-independence period we have been reduced to the status of slaves in our own homeland. The impact of oppressive rule by the J&K Government over us has obliterated our cultural and social ethos."
Not just this. Ladakhis have been quite unhappy with Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. The reason: He divided Ladakh in 1979 on communal lines and carved out of the Buddhist-majority Ladakh district a Muslim-majority Kargil district, to pit Muslims against Buddhists and weaken the pro-India movement, and weaken their struggle for political and economic empowerment.
As far as the history of the Ladakhi struggle against Kashmiri domination and the politics of separation based on religious fanaticism in the real sense of the term is concerned, it started in 1964. And this, notwithstanding the formation of the LBA in 1949 and the Ladakhis' attempts from time to time to achieve their due share in the State's political and economic processes, and make New Delhi free them from the cruel clutches of the Kashmiri leadership. 1964 was the first ever well-organized attempt on the part of Ladakhis in this direction under the inspiring and effective leadership of Kushok Bakula. That year, the fed up, grossly-ignored, politically marginalized and badly humbled Ladakhis demanded "NEFA-type Central administration."
However, nothing came of it as New Delhi adopted an indifferent attitude towards the well-founded demand put forth by the Ladakhis. Determined as they were to snap their ties with the arrogant and discriminatory Valley leadership, the Ladakhis again launched a full-scale movement in 1974. The stated objective this time was "Central administration for Ladakh."
Those who led this movement included Lama Lobzang, Thupstan Chhewang and Tsering Samphel; but with no result. The reason: The Valley-centric Kashmiri leadership opposed the demand tooth and nail. New Delhi went by the Kashmiri leadership's line of action. But the agitation continued unabated in a peaceful and constitutional manner.
However, in 1982 a concerted attempt was made to give a somewhat radical orientation to the ongoing struggle in the cold-desert by P Namgyal, Member of Parliament. However, he did not demand NEFA-type Central administration, but regional autonomy within the State.
As expected, neither the vindictive and unfair State Government nor the Union Government accepted the demand for regional autonomy for the cold desert. Instead, the Kashmiri rulers, backed to the hilt by the Union Government, "severely suppressed the democratic movement of peace-loving Buddhists through the State police."
It took no less than seven long years for the oppressed Ladakhis to reorganize themselves once again for another full-scale struggle to achieve independence from Kashmir and obtain the status of Union Territory. The movement, launched in 1989, was spearheaded by the LBA. This movement was the fall-out of the "cumulative alienation of Ladakhis."
This movement took place at a time when anti-India activities were gaining momentum in Kashmir, resulting in "total boycott of Independence Day celebrations." Did Farooq Abdullah do anything to curb any of the anti-national activities? No, he allowed the anti-national forces in Kashmir to vitiate the political atmosphere. On the contrary, the Government of Abdullah "chose to let out his anger on the peaceful demonstrations in Leh" culminating in loss of precious lives.
Autonomous Hill Development Council
Meanwhile, the agitating LBA not only suspended the agitation but also suspended its demand for Union Territory status, in view of the "increasing anti-national activities elsewhere in the state" and "keeping in mind the larger national interest." However, the 1989 LBA-sponsored agitation did move the authorities in New Delhi to an extent, and the authorities agreed to set up in the trans-Himalayan region Autonomous Hill Development Council more or less on the lines of the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council. It was a sort of compromise between the State Government, the Central Government and the LBA. It was called the tripartite agreement and was signed on October 29, 1989.
It was hoped that the authorities in Kashmir would allow the democratically-elected Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) to exercise some quantum of autonomy and not "starve it of funds." But what has been happening since then is that the State Government has been doing everything it could to render the LAHDC defunct for all practical purposes.
Fear of Kashmir independence
The prevailing anger, unrest and discontent in Ladakh, particularly in the Buddhist-majority Leh district, needs to be viewed in this context. But more than that, what has forced the peace-loving Ladakhis to again demand Union Territory status for their region is the loud clamour in Kashmir for independence from India. In other words, the demanmust be d for UT must viewed in the context of the shabby treatment New Delhi and the State Government have meted out to the distant Ladakhis. It should also be seen in the light of New Delhi's mind-boggling gestures towards the Kashmiri leadership, notwithstanding its well-known anti-India, pro-Pakistan, separatist and highly sectarian credentials.
The loud assertion of Ladakhis that they are left with no choice but to achieve "our long-standing demand for Union Territory status" so that they can "run their own affairs and safeguard their interests" cannot be construed as preposterous. The demand is genuine and needs to be accepted forthwith.
Even otherwise, New Delhi has no moral and political authority to lump the patriotic Ladakhis with Kashmiri separatists and religious bigots. How could New Delhi think in terms of a negotiated settlement of Jammu & Kashmir with Kashmiri separatists, and impose the same on the vast majority of the people of the State who are liberal and secular and wish to link their fate with New Delhi for better or for worse?
What then is the permanent solution to the problem facing the State? The only solution is segregation of Jammu and Ladakh from Kashmir. Such a segregation would not only limit the area of contention and strife to the Valley - the real trouble-spot - and teach the Kashmiri separatists a lesson, but also enable New Delhi to initiate a dialogue process with Kashmiri leaders of all hues, including those representing the internally-displaced Kashmiri Hindus, to find out what could satisfy them, but with the condition that the solution would be rational and national. (Concluded)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
