news details |
|
|
| Founding fathers didn't show political prudence, foresight | | Kashmir And The Federal Concept | |
RUSTAM
JAMMU, May 16: A number of well-meaning persons, including some highly sophisticated social scientists, are vouching for a true federal polity in order to satisfy what they call the "legitimate" aspirations and needs of different people inhabiting different parts of the country. Their refrain is that it is only in a federal constitution that people differing so widely in their perceptions as Kashmiri Muslims, Sikhs, Gorkhas and others can be brought together while preserving the country's unity and sovereignty. The former Vice-Chancellor of the MS University, Baroda, and Professor of Political Science, Bhiku Parekh, is one such person who believes in the concept of federalism. He is known all over the world for his outstanding works on socialism, Jeremy Bentham, Karl Marx and Hannath Arendt.
In one of his political essays "Wisdom of founders of Indian State", Prof Parekh has reflected on the political scenes of the United States, Britain, France and India and emphasised "the need to develop new models of political universalism that respect deep differences and ensure equal citizenship". As a matter of fact, he based on the American model as the ideal solution to the problems confronting the "multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic societies". His suggestion and arguments in favour of a federal set-up appear to be quite convincing.
However, he committed a serious mistake by giving full marks to the "founders of the Indian State", who - according to him - "granted (J and K) a separate status on the legitimate grounds that its different history, needs and circumstances merited a differential status". The mistake was all the more glaring because he took no notice whatsoever of the massive upsurge in Jammu and Ladakh between October 1947 and August 1953, as also of the role of the Valley, including the Kashmiri leftists, during 1952-53 and afterwards, leave aside the circumstances leading to the formation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in March 1846 under the Treaty of Amritsar and the nature of Jammu and Kashmir relations during 1846-1947.
Prof Parekh's view that the "founding fathers of the Indian State showed political prudence and foresight" while evolving a mechanism which could "represent the principle of universality within a territorially constituted community" and at the same time "relate to its constituent religious, cultural, ethnic and other groups" is not tenable. The fact is that an overwhelming majority of the members of the Indian Constituent Assembly toed the line of the then National Conference president and Wazir-e-Azam of Jammu And Kashmir Sheikh Abdullah, who in no way represented the will of the entire population and did not go by the counsels of the Law Minister and Chairman of the Drafting Committee B R Ambedkar who had turned down Sheikh Abdullah's demand for a special status. Maulana Hasrat Mohani's loud protest and warning in the Constituent Assembly on October 17, 1949 that the grant of a separate status on the score of religion would "enable Kashmir to assume independence afterwards" too failed to evoke any favourable response.
It is indeed an irony that even in this time and age we are clinging to the outmoded concepts and suggesting such solution as "autonomy- plus, independence-minus", "Retirn to 1953 or 1947" etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
