news details |
|
|
| First Reaction Interlocutors' recommend limited accession, slavery for Jammu, Ladakh | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, May 24: The Government of India today made public the recommendations as contained in the interlocutors' report, which was submitted to the Home Minister on October 12, 2011, saying that these were the views of the interlocutors and not of the Government, that "the Government has not taken any decisions on the report yet" and that "the Government will welcome an informed debate on its contents".
Even a cursory glance at the recommendations made by the interlocutors would be enough to reach a conclusion that they have suggested something which, if accepted, would undo almost all that the Congress-led successive Governments in New Delhi, barring the one being led by Manmohan Singh and the Jawaharlal Nehru-led Government between 1947 and October 1949, did to strengthen political and constitutional bonds between New Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir and bring the State at par with other States of the Union.
The interlocutors have, for instance, recommended that (1) Article 370 should be styled as "special" provision; that (2) nothing should be done to tinker even slightly with the special status the State has been enjoying since 1949; that (3) there should be a "review of all those Central laws and articles which have dented Jammu & Kashmir's special status"; that (4) the Government of India should set up a "constitutional committee" to review all the statute provisions in the State; that (5) the Constitutional committee should be "future-oriented"; that (6) the "Constitutional committee should bear in mind the dual character of J&K, viz. that it is a constituent unit of the Indian union and it also enjoys a special status in the Indian union as enshrined in the article 370 of the Indian Constitution" while making concrete recommendation; that (7) "there is a need to reflect on the quantum of legislative, financial and administrative powers that the State Government should delegate to the three regions - Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh -- at all levels of governance; that (8) "no more central laws and articles of the Constitution of India be extended to the State by Presidential order"; that (9) the "proportion of officers from the All India Services should be gradually reduced in favour of officers from the State civil service"; that (10) the "nomenclatures in English of the Governor and the Chief Minister should continue as at present" but "equivalent nomenclatures in Urdu may be used while referring to the two offices in Urdu"; that (11) "Parliament will make no laws applicable to the State unless it relates to the country's internal and external security and its vital economic interest, especially in the areas of energy and access to water resources"; and that (12) the Government of India needs to "take all appropriate measures to regard Jammu and Kashmir as a bridge between South and Central Asia".
The interlocutors have also recommended the creation of three Regional Councils, one each for Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh invested with "certain legislative, executive and financial powers" subject to the condition that the unity and integrity of the State has to be maintained and the people of Jammu province and Ladakh have to live under the overall control of the State Government.
The meaning of what the three interlocutors have suggested is crystal clear: limited accession of the State with India and slavery of Jammu and Ladakh. Let this reporter conclude his first reaction by referring to the reaction of two non-state subjects - Sunjay Srivastava of Bhopal and Gouri of Kolkata -- to the recommendations as made by the interlocutors.
Reacting to the recommendations, Srivastava said: "what is special about J&K? It is like any other State of India. Giving special status to J&K was a mistake. Let us not commit further blunders by perpetuating similar mistakes. This special status business is one of the reasons amongst many others responsible for separatist movement. Let us not make a mockery of equality as guaranteed by Constitution. Why not special status to Mumbai which gives the country 25% of its income tax collections? Why not to Punjab/Haryana who feed the country etc. Let us stop this politics of appeasement". Gouri said: "Dileep Padgaonkar, who reportedly accepted the hospitality of Fai, an ISI agent and attended the so-called India-bashing seminar in USA is the right person to produce such third class recommendations. This amounts to formal acceptance of AZADI. Will the Govt. give such facilities to all the States? Padgaonkar should explain the total expenditure incurred by his team behind such anti-national notorious project". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
