news details |
|
|
| Barkha advocates semi-independence in the name of federalism | | Interlocutors' Report | | NEHA
JAMMU, June 6: Barkha Dutt of NDTV 24X7, like many other supporters of Kashmiri separatists, is feeling disgusted these days. What has hurt her feelings is the failure of the New Delhi-appointed interlocutors to recommend wholesale withdrawal of the central laws and institutions from the state. Her main grouse against them is that "interlocutors while promising a 'new compact' have urged the correcting of historical wrongs and the mending of broken promises, while simultaneously ruling out any simple stepping back into a Time Machine". "We need to be sensitive to the genesis and history of people's (Kashmiri Muslims') grievances," she has said in her latest political essay on Jammu and Kashmir, "Federalism for J&K?"
If Barkha is feeling disgusted because of the interlocutors' failure to do what she wanted them to, she is equally annoyed with the BJP. "Ironically - and as it often happens with issues where extremity of thought steers the conversation - the criticism of the report released by the Kashmir interlocutors has come from groups that have nothing in common ideologically. The BJP and the separatist Hurriyat Conference have both been scathing in their appraisal of the interlocutors. The BJP - which doesn't fully appreciate what a hero A B Vajpayee is in the Valley for his innovative peace efforts - has called the proposal to review all central laws on J&K after 1952 "disastrous," she has said while reflecting on the BJP's views on the interlocutors' report. Similarly, she has taken on the Congress-led UPA Government for its indifferent attitude towards the people of Kashmir and opined that New Delhi might not do anything to redress the grievances of the Muslims of Kashmir. "Given that the UPA has been unable to reach an internal consensus on amending the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act in the state, with Home Ministry and Defence Ministry on opposite sides of the trenches, it's hardly likely that the Centre will have the gumption to set up a constitutional committee for J and K", as suggested by the interlocutors to review all the central laws and Articles extended to the state after 1952, she has said.
So much so, Barkha has virtually made common cause with Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, saying had "he been instrumental in steering the anti-NCTC (National Counter Terrorism Centre) agitation first, the criticism of him would have been of different order and no one would accepted federalism as an explanation in the context of J and K". "But there might be another prism through which one could view the issue - the growing assertion of the states in the Union of India. When the interlocutors argue that the mandate of Parliament over J and K should be restricted to matter of internal and external security and economic issues, the idea is termed as preposterous. Bu don't we forget that we now live in the age of chief ministers? Recently, the assertion of federalism stalled the Centre's much-vaunted anti-terror body - the NCTC - from taking off. Now imagine of the CM of J and K - not the CM of West Bengal - had been instrumental in steering the anti-NCTC agitation first. The criticism of him would have been of a different order and no one would have accepted federalism as an explanation in the context of J and K. It is this hypocrisy of public response that we must review. Yes, of course, two decades of militancy locates J and K in a different context from the other states. But then the circumstances of its history make it what the home minister admitted was a 'unique problem' searching for a 'unique solution'. If we are able to accept the declaration of regional independence by a multitude of state satraps, why not try and extend the same width of mind here? Article 370 - which gives J and K its special status - has always been a point of political confrontation. But the rhetoric sidesteps the fact that our constitution sanctions what has been called an "asymmetric federalism'. Specific privileges have been given to 'unequal' but unique states through a slew of special status measures or fiscal incentives. Article 371 contains special provisions for states as diverse as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and others. So why single out J and K?," she has, in fact, said.
It is absolutely clear from what she wrote in her "Federalism for J and K" that she would want India to quit Kashmir so that it becomes semi-independent, if not completely independent of India. It is also clear from what she wrote that she has no place whatsoever in her political and ideological scheme of things for Jammu and Ladakh where an overwhelming majority of population longs for the unity and territorial integrity of India and vehemently opposes the champions of greater autonomy, bordering on virtual sovereignty. Besides, it is also clear from what she wrote that she is just incompetent to differentiate between Article 370 and Article 371. Article 370 has accorded a special status to the state to the extent that it has its own constitution and a separate flag. Besides, under Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir also exercises residuary powers. As for Article 371, it doesn't grant the power to have a separate constitution and a separate flag, as also the power to exercise residuary powers. This is for the information of Barkha. It is also for the information of Barkha that an overwhelming majority of the people of the state hates and despises the likes of her for their perverted views and communal approach to the issues facing the state. Will she stop poking her dirty and communal nose in the affairs of Jammu and Kashmir?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
