news details |
|
|
| Kashmiris & Government they elect not happy, says Naya | | What about Jammu & Ladakh? | | Rustam
Jammu, Apr 14: Kuldip Nayar's "The Kashmir Question" does not really want Pakistan to come forward to help end unrest in the region by adopting a rational stand on Jammu and Kashmir. He also doesn't want India to stake claim over POJK and Gilgit-Baltistan. He only recognises the Line of Control as the border between India and Pakistan and wants New Delhi to come forward and take steps calculated to end the prevailing unrest in Kashmir and harmonise relations with Pakistan. He asserts that there is civil society in India which has certain obligations that a democratic polity (Government of India) has to carry out. Which civil society he talks about? Does he talk about those who consider Jammu and Kashmir a disputed territory or does he talk about those who masquerade as champions of human rights? Or, does he talk about those who wish to satisfy the communal urges of Pakistan and its agents in Kashmir at the cost of India? He has created confusion and only he can answer these simple and straight questions to put things in perspective.
Any way, the upshot of the Nayar's whole argument is that "if the Kashmiris remain unhappy and the Government they elect too feels that the problem has to be sorted out with Pakistan, New Delhi has to face the fact". In other words, he wants New Delhi to accommodate the viewpoint of the people of Kashmir (read Kashmiri Muslims) and the Government they elect on Pakistan and at the same time asserts that "this does not necessarily mean that Islamabad's demands have to be met" and that "India can never have another division on the basis of religion". To be more exact, Nayar wants the State Government and Muslims of Kashmir remain happy but doesn't make any concrete suggestion that could help New Delhi achieve the objective.
It's all confusion. It is not clear what exactly he wants India to do to address the Kashmir question. He doesn't want another division on the basis of religion and at the same he wants New Delhi to appreciate and accommodate the views of the State Government and the Muslims of Kashmir on Pakistan. His new political essay on Kashmir question, Pakistan and New Delhi is nothing but a blend of irreconcilable contradictions. That's it.
If his latest formulation on the Kashmir question is a blend of contradictions and confusion, his formulation on the State of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh is no less confusing, notwithstanding the acknowledgement that "the (Kashmir) Valley, predominantly Muslims, has gone its own way and has kept at a distance both the Hindu-majority of Jammu and the Buddhist-majority of Ladakh".
What exactly he wants? He does acknowledge that the Valley has its own brand of politics. But he doesn't suggest any mechanism that could bridge the gulf the Valley has created by keeping at a distance the Hindu-majority Jammu and the Buddhist-majority Ladakh. Does he want separation of Jammu and Ladakh from the Valley or does he want the people of Jammu and Ladakh to suffer and groan the manner in which they have been suffering and groaning under the yoke of Kashmiri rule?
Nayar has been writing on Pakistan, on India-Pakistan relations and on Jammu and Kashmir since several decades. He has written hundreds of essays on the issues facing Pakistan, India and the region as a whole. I am not saying that the concerned people have appreciated or not appreciated his formulations and solutions. But I am trying to say is that his latest political essay has made the prevailing confusion worse confounded and left the readers guessing. It is the likes of Kuldip Nayar, who have been complicating the otherwise very simple things and the reasons are obvious. (Concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
