news details |
|
|
| Kashmir leadership opposes empowerment of Jammu | | Defeat of Regressive Ideology? | | Rustam
JAMMU, Oct 13: Interlocutors Dileep Padgaonkar, Radha Kumar and M M Ansari submitted their report yesterday. They had been mandated by the Union Government to suggest a roadmap that could surmount the problems facing the state and the time at their disposal was twelve months. They completed their job on time and submitted the report exactly on the day the deadline ended. They need to be complemented for the simple reason that they did not seek extension, something unusual.
The report is not yet in public domain. Reports suggest that the report of the interlocutors would be made public after it was discussed by all the political parties in a meeting to be convened by the Union Home Ministry. Hence, it would be premature to reflect on the reports which appeared today on what the interlocutors have reportedly recommended as a solution to the problems facing the people of the state, notwithstanding the fact that all the media reports, without any exception, suggested one and the same thing: No greater autonomy; no self-rule; no azadi; "meaningful autonomy"; no concession outside the Indian Constitution; devolution of power; development/regional councils for Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh; development of "sub-regions"; withdrawal of Armed Forces Special powers Act; close relations between this and other part of Jammu and Kashmir; unity of the state; preservation and promotion of diversity in the state; return of the displaced Kashmir Hindus; mitigation of the hardships of refugees from West Pakistan, POJK and border migrants; release of "political prisoners and stone throwers"; protection of human rights; separatists missed the bus; dialogue with Pakistan; economic development; tackling unemployment problem; and so on.
If what the media reports suggested is correct, then it can be said that the people of Jammu and Ladakh and displaced Kashmiri Hindus, whose battle-cry was, and continues to be, complete integration into India and empowerment within the India Constitution, have once again scored a sort of victory over the Kashmiri leadership's regressive, primitive and exclusivist ideology. Still, however, one has to keep his fingers crossed and go through the report to find what exactly the interlocutors meant by "meaningful autonomy". This and other suggestions would be dealt with comprehensively after this writer goes through the report of the interlocutors.
However, it is imperative to reflect on the negative response the media reports on the interlocutors' reported suggestions have evoked from the Kashmiri leaders of all hues. It is imperative for two reasons. One is that the so-called mainstream and separatist Kashmiri leaders have rejected the report outright saying the interlocutors have failed to take into account the Kashmiri sentiments and given nothing to the state. The other is that they have rejected out-of-hand the reported suggestion of the interlocutors that three regional/development councils be set up in the state, one each for Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh and that there should be equal distribution of funds between Kashmir and Jammu.
Reacting sharply to the interlocutors' reported suggestions, Tehrik-e-Hurriyat chief and pro-Pakistan Syed Ali Shah Geelani reportedly said: "No solution within the purview of Indian Constitution is acceptable…Since their (interlocutors') appointment, we have been saying it is a futile exercise and now the final report submitted by them has proven their futility…It was nothing more than a time-consuming exercise to hoodwink international community…They have not done any favour or granted concession to Kashmiris by recommending revocation of 'draconian laws' like Armed Forces Special Powers Act or Disturbed Areas Act. These inhuman and brutal laws imposed have to go at any cost…Kashmiris have rendered countless sacrifices from 1947 for right to self-determination and nothing short of it will be acceptable to us.
We want right to self-determination for all the parts of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir including Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistan Administered Kashmir".
The reaction of Chairman of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) Muhammad Yasin Malik was no different. He said: Recommending Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) as solution of Kashmir issue proves that instead of resolving Kashmir issue, they (interlocutors) want to dissolve it. The day (the) Government of India nominated interlocutors for Kashmir, JKLF decided not to meet them, because Kashmiris were expecting that after arrival of high level All Party Parliamentary delegation that New Delhi is serious to resolve Kashmir issue, hoping they will nominate decision-making political shades of India to engage Kashmiris in a meaningful and ideological dialogue process. But it did not happen and people of Kashmir lost hope…They tried their best in the name of regionalism to communalize Jammu and Kashmir, which is very dangerous trend for entire South Asia…Until Kashmir issue is not resolved in accordance with the wishes of Kashmiris, ongoing movement will continue".
What did chairman of Hurriyat Conference (M) Mirwaiz Umar Farooq reportedly say while reacting to the interlocutors' reported suggestions? He said: "It has been proven beyond doubt now that it was a meaningless time-consuming exercise.
They have been exposed and our stand of not meeting them has been proven right…They have not represented the sentiments and aspirations of Kashmiris in their final report. We want to tell New Delhi once again that Kashmiris have not sacrificed their lives for incentives, packages or autonomy, but have done it for the resolution of Kashmir issue according to our will…They want constructive dialogue process between all the three parties to dispute for its final settlement". (To be continued) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
