news details |
|
|
| For the kind information of HM Chidambaram | | Problem in K Communal | | Rustam
JAMMU, Apr 9: On October 14, 2009, Union Home Minister disappointed the nation. He dumb-founded everyone who believes in national unity and integrity and Indian sovereignty; who abhors and hates communalism, terrorism, separatism and politics National Conference and Pakistani-style. It was on that day that he addressed the All India Editors' Conference in Srinagar and made a controversial speech. He, inter-alia, said: "Voice of separatism in Kashmir is a reality. There is a political problem in Kashmir and it has to be solved. Centre would start a dialogue…but it will be a quiet dialogue and quiet diplomacy, away from the media glare, till a political solution to the problem is arrived at. The dialogue cannot take place in the glare of the media. The dialogue will be held quietly - one-on-one, two people to two people. Once the broader contours (of a solution to the Kashmir issue) are arrived at, it will be made public. The solution (to Kashmir problem) must recognize the unique history and geography of Jammu & Kashmir. Solutions to other problems in India cannot be replicated here. We may find a unique solution, there is nothing wrong. But it must be acceptable to the vast majority of the people of Kashmir."
What exactly did he mean by "quiet dialogue" and "quiet diplomacy"? What did his "unique solution" formulation mean? What did he mean by what he called "the unique history and geography of Jammu and Kashmir"? Why did he hide things from the nation? Why did he not explain the contours of the so-called solution to the so-called Kashmir problem? Did he represent the Indian nation and the Indian State or did he speak for those in Kashmir, the United States, China, Pakistan, Libya and so on who were working overtime to ensure the segregation of Jammu & Kashmir from India on the ground that it was a Muslim-majority state; that Kashmiri Muslims (read Kashmiri-speaking and Kashmiri Sunnis) were a race apart and could not live in a democratic and liberal India?
Had Chidambaram forgotten Jawaharlal Nehru who got Sheikh Abdullah dismissed and arrested on 9 May 1953 on the charge that he was hatching, in collaboration with the United States, a conspiracy to de-link Kashmir from India and establish a "Switzerland-type of Independent Kashmir"? Did he know Indira Gandhi dismissed Farooq Abdullah in 1984 saying the National Conference leader had become a "threat to national security"? Had he forgotten that Rajiv Gandhi dismissed GM Shah, son-in-law of Sheikh Abdullah, in 1986, for identical reasons? Had the Home Minister also forgotten that the Congress to which he belonged and belongs snapped all ties with the National Conference in 1977 and again in 1984 and 1990 for almost similar reasons?
The answer, unfortunately, is: Yes, he and others in South and North Block had forgotten everything and were indulging in activities designed to please and appease Islamic terrorists and religious bigots. What did all that signify? Well, many things. It signified the willingness of the Congress-led UPA Government to grant major concessions to the politics of terrorism, blackmail, communalism and separatism being practiced by all Kashmir-based leaders. It signified the decision of the Congress-led UPA to barter paramount national interests and compromise the age-old Indian position on Kashmir to pander to communalists and extremists and their source of inspiration - Pakistan. It signified the willingness of the Union Government to give absolute and unbridled powers to the Kashmir leadership that would help it enslave, further exploit, humiliate and disgrace the people of the state in general, and the people of Jammu and Ladakh in particular, and weaken the northern frontiers with a view to extending their tentacles to other parts of India with utmost ease.
All this also signified the baneful influence of a handful Kashmiri leaders and of Wajahat Habibullah, the then Chief Information Commissioner, on the Home Minister, nay on the Congress-led UPA Government. It further signified the chicken-heartedness of the Union Government, as also its bungling instinct. It signified that the Congress-led UPA was incompetent to promote paramount national interests and defend the very institution of the Indian State. It signified that the Union Government had willingly walked into the American trap and refashioned its foreign policy taking into consideration the views of Pakistan, Kashmiri leadership, terrorists and so-called human rights activists masquerading as peace-mongers. It signified the humiliating defeat of those in Delhi managing affairs relating to internal and external security.
It can be construed that the Congress-led UPA had raised its hands before a handful of Kashmiri separatists and communalists and that it was treading a dangerous and suicidal path.
The Home Minister said the Kashmir problem was a "political problem." He was totally wrong. It was a pure communal problem - created by the sectarian, anti-secular, anti-democratic and pro-Pakistan Kashmiri Muslim leadership. Can the Home Minister say that the people of Jammu and Ladakh and displaced Kashmiri Hindus are part of the ongoing separatist movement in Kashmir? He cannot. Can he say that the people of Jammu and Ladakh and displaced Kashmiri Hindus want a dispensation outside the Indian constitutional framework; that they want withdrawal of the Army and paramilitary forces and anti-terror laws from the state? He can't. Can he say that the people of Jammu and Ladakh and displaced Kashmiri Hindus want withdrawal of Central laws and institutions from the state? He can't.
The Home Minister said the solution to the so-called Kashmir problem had to be such as "recognizes the history and geography of Jammu & Kashmir." Did he know anything about the state's geography and history? It can be said without any hesitation that he was blissfully ignorant about both.
Now that the Home Minister would be in Jammu tomorrow, it would be only appropriate on his part to make a statement dissociating himself from what he said on October 14, 2009 in Srinagar. It would be all the more appropriate if he says in the state's winter capital, Jammu, that the problem in Kashmir is neither political nor human and that it is a purely communal problem that would be tackled as such. Besides, he would do well to make it loud and clear that New Delhi would now not tolerate anything non-sense in Kashmir and that it would take action against the rebels the way Beijing and Islamabad act against rebels. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
