news details |
|
|
| Government of India appears to be caught in web of confusions and indecisiveness. | | Justice Saghir Ahmed report: A very good representative sample of non seriousness towards J&K affairs by Daya Sagar | | Daya Sagar | 7/17/2011 7:51:29 PM |
| More and more questions on “NATIONALITY” have been drafted by people belonging to Kashmir valley. The Self Rule draft released by Mufti Mohd Sayeed’s PDP on 25 October 2008 at a press conference has attempted to add a new leaf to the questions on nationality of “Kashmiries” ( I would not say J&K). 26th Oct was the accession day and news on Self Rule Doc release was also carried to people on 26 Oct.
So strangely ,so often , while referring to Kashmir disturbances, those in the power seats fix the problem in and around the issues like unemployment / lesser economic resources .No doubt the economic problems faced by people could be used as a motivation tool by those who may be organizing some revolts / agitations against a country or nation. But in J&K it is not the unemployment / administrative mismanagement that is the key cause of / militancy / public protests in Kashmir Valley. Similarly, there could be no reason for Organisation of Islamic Countries / countries like US/UK / Pakistan to show concern for the economic deficiencies that local people in a country like India may be facing. In a democracy the demands for Autonomy or Self rule too would not be so simply seen due to unemployment. The facts are that in J&K (i) questions raised on the trueness / extent of 1947 Accession of J&K / Constitutional integration with India (ii) J&K being a unit of Indian Nation have remained unanswered by New Delhi for 60yrs. Even falsehoods repeatedly narrated and not contested could become belief for the common man. Those envy to India becoming a sustaining international economic & constitutional power too could hence dare interfering in J&K affairs.
J&K is referred only as Kashmir / J&K unemployment as Kashmir unemployment / J&K youth Kashmiri youth /J&K cause as Kashmir cause / J&K aspirations as Kashmiri aspirations / etc. And all the questions raised on the intentions of India / Indian leaders / neglect of J&K / erosion of the Autonomy /betrayal of commitments and like emerge only ( broadly) from Kashmir Valley. The 1946 quit Kashmir call against the Dogra Raj too emerged from Kashmir Valley. Demands for plebiscite / referendum/ fulfillment of UN resolutions on Indian complaint in UNO too find noticeable / more working grounds amongst the people / writers / leaders in Kashmir valley. Azadi and even Greater Autonomy / Self Rule demands have emerged from Kashmir Valley leaders. Present Kashmir region area is less than 60 % of Jammu region and is just a fraction (nearly 10%) of Ladakh region. GOI has been treating Kashmiri leaders / voices / as the only voice of J&K. Where as the truth would be otherwise. The prime posts in political parties and in the Government have been mostly given to people of Kashmir Valley. Still Kashmir valley leaders have not shown trust in GOI and have always been accusing New Delhi for its being untruthful in keeping commitments ( the Self Rule document of PDP, a party floated by a Ex Senior Congress leader who shared power in J&K with Congress for 3 years and also earlier remained the Home Minister of India has much to substantiate remarks made here) Inspite of so much of favours all anti India voices have only been coming from Kashmir Valley .So, the ideologies and elements that do not treat J&K as India Nation have been allowed to nurse more in Kashmir valley.
In recent years the RTCs, Working Groups, interlocutors and study groups too have only concentrated more on Kashmir valley. The reasons could be seen in the fact that all these 6 decades New Delhi has looked at only Kashmir valley. So, any official group visiting from Delhi is keen to meet the separatist elements who do not show any interest. Where as those who hail from Jammu region are not received well by the groups/ Interlocutors on J&K (may be the preliminary inputs they receive before taking up the ground work demand such like approach). Hence it could be inferred that even the study groups, point men on J&K and interlocutors too do not appear that serious. To quote Man Mohan Singh Prime Minister of India had appointed 5 working Groups on J&K in 2006 ( The Prime Minister, Man Mohan Singh during UPA-1 Government had set up five working groups on Jammu and Kashmir on May 25, 2006, at the end of the second multi-party RTC at Srinagar. The first and third RTCs were held at New Delhi on 25/02/2006 and 25/042007) .One of the working group ( 5th WG Strengthening Relations Between The State and The Centre ) was headed by Justice S. Saghir Ahmed ( Ex Chief Justice of J&K HC & Andhra Pradesh HC and Retd Judge of Supreme Court of India ). In the first meeting of the WG held on 12th Dec 2006 Chairman made it clear that the WG was not to concern with the dispute between India and Pakistan pertaining to State of J&K and therefore WG would confine itself to the consideration of the questions relating to Centre State relations with in the frame work of the Constitution of India. So in view of the terms of reference the subjects before the WG were like Autonomy (NC demand), Self Rule ( JK PDP demand), Article 370 .The WG report was signed by the Chairman on 18 Dec 2009 (report was presented at Jammu to J&K CM Omar Abdullah on 23rd Dec 2009 by the Secretary of the Group Mr. Ajit Kumar. ) (three years after the first meeting).
So strangely the WG report did not particularly dispose off the Autonomy Demand / J&K Assembly Autonomy Resolution June 2000 in even minimum specific terms { to quote the report said (i) Article370 of Constitution of India : The matter being 60 years old should be settled once for all. On page 10 para 3 of report a reference of supreme court case Sampath Prakash has been made from the submission made by PDP through MH Baig before the WG. But the report still made casual remarks on Art 370 (ii) the report in the summary recommendations say that the autonomy demand could be examined in the light of Kashmir Accord or in some other manner or on the basis of some other formulae as the present Prime Minister may deem fit and appropriate so as to restore the autonomy to the extent possible. Here the question is why did the Chairman Ex Judge not examine at his level and make specific recommendations. He left the issue still open after spending 3 years. (iii ) As regards PDP demand of Self Rule at para 3 of the Summary recommendations the report says that on behalf of PDP Mr. Baig explained orally the concept of Self Rule but the Self Rule as proposed by PDP could not be considered in all its detail as the document containing the various aspects of Self Rule were not provided to WG as promised by PDP. How funny PDP had by that time released concept Self Rule Document dated October 2008 on 25 Oct 2008 in Press Conference at Srinagar and also posted on its website. Question is that Still the WG report did not drop the demand of Self Rule and instead laid down that it requires to be considered by Central Government if and when approached ( by PDP) with documents. The Document released by PDP had sufficient contents that concern the Accession 1947 / Indo Pak relations / POK and the report should have made its observations on the demand being conceptually with in the scope of terms of reference or with in the Indian Constitution or otherwise . But the WG took it so casually. Justice Saghir Ahmed report is a very good representative sample to demonstrate the non seriousness towards J&K affairs at the prime levels. I would ask who would bear the cost of finances spent over 3 years and the valuable three years lost by people of J&K hopefully hoping to listen something concrete from Justice Saghir Ahmed. The reference agenda was not attended and volume of report was compiled with items out side the terms of reference. What was the need to submit the REPORT with no material worth reporting as regards the terms of reference?
Jammu and Kashmir State has remained ( as an issue/ dispute / conflict ) in news for decades (. (Particularly after 1990, more for the disturbances in Kashmir Valley). Surely it has not been on happy notes for India in particular and common man of J&K in general. Since neither the internal aspects nor the external aspects were taken concernedly proportionate to the otherwise damaging values the political dimensions could take even from international point of view , Government of India appears to be in a state of worst web of confusions and indecisiveness. The mass migration of Kashmiri Hindu and return of Migrants to Valley does not appear as first priority for GOI even after 21 years. Rather those a few who question the validity 1947 accession of J&K with India appear receiving compassionate attention of New Delhi.
*( Daya Sagar: social activist:: leading scribe on Kashmir affairs [email protected] 09419796096)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
