news details |
|
|
| Division Of State The Only Solution -- I Jammu has not given mandate to Kashmir to decide its future | | | Neha
JAMMU, Apr 6: Kashmiri leaders, without any exception, oppose those in Jammu and Ladakh who vouch for the state's trifurcation or reorganisation and underline the need for maintaining unity and integrity of the state. They say the votaries of trifurcation/reorganisation are communalists of communalists, reactionary of reactionaries and anti-Kashmir. At the same time, they air views which run counter to what the people of Jammu and Ladakh hold very dear and consistently fight for in their own way without any backing whatsoever from New Delhi. New Delhi, like the so-called Kashmiri nationalists, doesn't consider Jammu and Ladakh important factors in the state's political situation.
It is too well-known that Kashmiri leaders, including those controlling the so-called mainstream political parties, have been demanding a dispensation that is not consistent with what the Indian Constitution handed down to the people across the country on January 26, 1950, notwithstanding the fact that the state already enjoys a very special status under Article 370 of the Constitution. Jammu and Kashmir is the solitary State in the Union which has a separate constitution and separate flag and which exercises residuary powers, including the power of taxation. The state was given special status way back in October 1949 at the behest of the Kashmiri leadership. The then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had made common cause with those in Kashmir who were for a separate dispensation for the state on the ground that it was Muslim-majority. Nehru manipulated the Indian Constituent Assembly to please the Kashmiri leadership of the time, much to the chagrin of integrationists in Jammu and Ladakh. It's all history.
The truth is that the Kashmiri leadership is not happy with what Kashmir got in 1949. They want something more despite the fact that Kashmir is ruling the state since October 1947. Some of them want greater autonomy, bordering on virtual sovereignty. Some of them want self-rule, coupled with a mechanism that empowers Islamabad to enjoy co-equal powers with New Delhi in Indian Jammu and Kashmir. Self-rule and greater autonomy are two sides of one and the same coin. Some want to join Pakistan. Some vouch for complete independence. And some stand for right to self-determination. Though vertically divided into five groups, they are one against those in Jammu and Ladakh who want their separation from Kashmir on the grounds that they despise those who stand for greater autonomy, self-rule, Pakistan, independence and right to self-determination and that they are religiously committed to the territorial integrity of India. But more than that, all or nearly all the Kashmiri leaders take the people of Jammu and Ladakh for granted and want to impose their religio-political will on them. They are so irrational and arrogant.
Take, for example, what All-Party Hurriyat Conference - Mirwaiz (APHC-M) Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said only recently at the 19th Annual Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) at Geneva, Switzerland. Speaking on "Democracy & Self-determination", Mirwaiz said, "APHC is willing to forgo international facilitation provided both the governments of India and Pakistan agree that the APHC leadership will be fully associated with the peace process at a later stage." He, according to the APHC (M) statement, also, inter-alia, said: "APHC insists on third party mediation for a simple reason. Nothing else can work. India and Pakistan have negotiated bilaterally over Kashmir without result for over 64 years and even slow learners would conclude that a new negotiating formula is necessary for progress. Moreover, third party intervention has proven fruitful in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Indonesia, Kosovo and Southern Sudan and nothing about Kashmir makes it a less auspicious candidate for a jump-start from the international community".
Mirwaiz did not just stop there. He dubbed India as "brutal and deceitful" and accused the Indian Army and paramilitary forces of "brutally victimising Kashmir by human rights violations". "India may be the largest democracy but its policy towards Kashmir has been uniformly brutal and deceitful. It initially championed, fashioned and expressly accepted United Nations Security Council resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, mandating self-determination in Kashmir administered by the United Nations. India soon dishonored its obligation when it perceived the people of Kashmir would never vote accession to Indian sovereignty in a free and fair election. It unilaterally proclaimed Kashmir had fallen into its territorial universe, irrespective of international law and the contrary insistence of the United Nations," he said, and added that "the people of Kashmir ask neither more nor less than what has been afforded to Namibia, the East Timorese and Montenegro and Southern Sudan: Self-determination is both a legal and moral entitlement. To believe anything less than self-determination would end the frightening strife that has blazed for 64 years is to believe in fairy tales". In other words, he very strongly pitched for "right to self-determination" for Kashmiris. (To be continued) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
