news details |
|
|
| Geelani's insistence on right-to-self-determination | | Referendum In Jammu -- I | | Rustam
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, July 18: Syed Ali Shah Geelani and several other Kashmiri leaders have been insisting on right-to-self-determination for years now. They have been saying the political future of the state still remains to be determined and that the UN resolutions provide for the right-to-self-determination and, hence, it should be granted to what they call "Kashmiris." Geelani and others of his ilk represent one view in Kashmir. Then, there are those who have been demanding independence for the state. They represent the second view. There is another group in Kashmir which stands for pre-1953 position or withdrawal of all the central laws from the state or semi-independence. The case in point is the NC and the Left parties, plus some Kashmir-based Congress leaders. There is one more group in Kashmir. It not only stands for self-rule or pre-1953 position or quasi-independence, but also for the implementation of "supra-state measures." By "supra-State measures" they, among other things, mean India-Pakistan joint control over Jammu and Kashmir. The case in point is not just the PDP but also Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. The PDP and the Mirwaiz-led APHC are supporters of the Musharaf's four-point formula - demilitarization; India-Pakistan joint-control; division of the state (as it existed on August 15, 1947) into seven regions (on communal lines) and self-governance. None of these groups is willing to give up its demand and everyone is aware of the stands taken by these four main groups in Kashmir. There are other groups in Kashmir as well but their demands are similar to the ones being put forth and advocated by Geelani and Mirwaiz. Hence, there is no need to discuss them.
As for the Union Government, it has appointed three interlocutors charged with the responsibility of ascertaining the views of the people on the issues afflicting them and suggest ways and means leading to the "political" resolution of the "Kashmir problem" and resolution of the problems facing "regions and sub-regions." All of their words and actions have indicated their willingness to accommodate to the extent possible the Kashmiri aspirations. Mercifully, the Union Home Ministry has described Kashmir as a "unique problem" and wants a "unique solution." The attitude of the Prime Minister and the AICC president and UPA chairperson is no different. The Prime Minister is on record having said "there is the need to evolve broader consensus on the twin issues of autonomy and self-rule with the vast flexibilities provided by the Indian Constitution." As for the Congress, its top leadership has repeatedly said that it is not averse to the idea of the state being granted more autonomy within the constitutional framework. Such is the attitude of the powers-that-be in New Delhi to the demands being put forth by Kashmiri leaders.
The demands of Kashmiri leaders and the quite positive attitude of the policy-planners and trouble-shooters towards the demands raised from time to time by Kashmiri leaders, including those ruling the state and occupying the opposition benches in the state legislature, has created uncertainty in the minds of the people of Jammu and Ladakh to the extent that some of the politically conscious people have come to believe that if they remain dormant and devoid of political activity any longer, they would be entirely submerged under the rising tide of the "Kashmiri Muslim sub-nationalism."
The question is: Why should the authorities in New Delhi create a situation that forces the people of Jammu and Ladakh to think on such lines? After all, they are part and parcel of the Indian society; they, too, have their aspirations, which, unlike the aspirations of the Kashmiri Muslim leadership, are out-and-out pro-India. New Delhi should have realized this and taken substantial steps to mitigate the hardships of the people of these two regions and ensured that no one from Kashmir was able to outrage their sentiments in any manner whatever. Each nation and each state, which is a state in the real sense of the term or which is not a banana state, is always at the back and call of its nationalist constituency because it is this constituency that constitutes the backbone of the nation and the state. The Indian State has not done so. Instead, it has abandoned the nationalist constituency in the state for all practical purposes. With the result, discontent, frustration and anger have gripped both these regions. (To be continued) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
