news details |
|
|
| It's time for interlocutors to quit and say goodbye | | Fai Connection - I | | ET Report
Jammu, July 30: Ever since their appointment as interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir on October 13, 2010, Dileep Padgaonkar and Radha Kumar have courted one controversy or the other by making controversial statements and adopting an approach described by many in the state as "selective" and "patently Kashmir-centric."
It was in the third week of October last year that they created a furore of sorts in Jammu and other parts of the country, including New Delhi, with the parties like the BJP demanding recall of Padgaonkar and Kumar and various Jammu-based organizations demanding their dismissal. What had angered the people were the statements of Padgaonkar and Kumar, made in Srinagar. While Padgaonkar had asked students of Kashmir University to prepare a roadmap for Azadi, Kumar had stated that they would ask the Union Government to amend the constitution to accommodate the Azadi demand. They had also stated that Pakistan was an important factor and that if peace was to return to Kashmir and India-Pakistan relations to be harmonized, Pakistani concerns in Jammu and Kashmir had to be addressed and accommodated.
Since the criticism against the interlocutors was severe and widespread, it was hoped that they would change their style of working and tone and tenor, refrain from making any controversial statement and adopt a holistic approach to the issues facing people inhabiting different regions of the state. But nothing of this sort happened. They continued to behave in the fashion they had been behaving since their appointment. They would not only repeatedly say that there were no "redlines for them"; that the status-quo would not end alienation in Kashmir and resolve the "Kashmir issue"; that the Government of India had virtually betrayed the people of Kashmir by eroding the special status they enjoyed under Article 370; and that Kashmir was a political problem that needed a political solution.
So much so that they stated a number of times that Article 370 had to be restored to its original position - restrict New Delhi's jurisdiction over Jammu and Kashmir to defence, communication and foreign affairs and allow the Kashmiri ruling elite to exercise absolute powers in all other spheres - and that the Union Government had not fulfilled the promises made with the people Kashmir from Time to time. In other words, they repeatedly spoke the language of those demanding the right to self-determination, independence, autonomy, self-rule and so on and shared the view of those demanding separation saying the issue of Jammu and Kashmir was yet to be clinched. To be more precise, they crossed all the lines and became objects of ridicule and contempt among the patriotic circles.
If the interlocutors invited ire for the views they expressed from time to time, the approach they adopted to identify people with whom they would interact to find what ails Jammu and Kashmir further raised questions about their very credentials. They, in collaboration with certain vested interests in the establishment, adopted an approach that rigorously excluded those who stood for national unity and integrity, state's complete merger with India, application of the Indian Constitution to the full, empowerment of the neglected regions and mitigation of the problems and difficulties the various category of refugees (from West Pakistan and POJK) in Jammu province have been facing since 1947 and refugees from Kashmir have been facing since 1990.
As a matter of fact, the interlocutors, in collaboration with the vested interests in the establishment, adopted an approach that ensured the participation of those who would not present a true picture of facts and who would not only suggest loose relationship between the state and New Delhi but would talk of the "alienation" of the over-empowered and over-fed Kashmir. That they were quite selective and that their intentions were not noble could be seen from the composition of the two round table conference they held in the state, one each in Kashmir and Jammu. They excluded everyone who they and the vested interests considered inconvenient. These were not round table conferences. These were basically conferences organized to evolve a particular line that would be out-and-out Kashmir-centric; that would accord dangerous respectability to the cult of gun and politics of separatism and blackmail; and that would not only seal the fate of Jammu, the fate of Ladakh and the fate of the refugees for all the times to come but that would also help Pakistan to extend its area of influence to the Indian Jammu and Kashmir. (To be continued) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
