news details |
|
|
| Kashmiri Leadership & Regional Councils | | Appropriate time for separation | | NEHA
JAMMU, June 14: It was too well-known that Kashmiri leaders of all shades of opinion were rabidly anti-Jammu and anti-Ladakh and that in pursuit of their political, administrative, social and economic policies they were directed more by Kashmir than by the state interests. The far-reaching effects of their policies adversely affected the development of Jammu and Ladakh, which could have been developed, had there a mechanism in place barring the Kashmiri leadership from doing what they did since 1947. Everyone in Jammu and Ladakh would recognize this fact. Leave alone a couple of social scientists who are on the staff of University of Jammu. For, they represent the Kashmiri interests in Jammu.
Still, however, there were certain people who believed that the "mainstream" Kashmiri leadership was not really averse to the idea of devolution of powers to the regions. Theirs' was a wrong assessment. Had they really studied the nature of Kashmiri leadership and its attitudes, they would not have reposed any faith whatever in the Kashmiri leadership. On the contrary, they would have joined hands with those demanding separation from Kashmir or creation of three full-fledged states of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh saying enough is enough.
That their assessment was totally wrong could be seen from the reactions of the "mainstream" Kashmiri leaders like National Conference (NC) additional general secretary Mustafa Kamaal, NC MP Dr Mehboob Beg and People's Democratic Party (PDP) spokesperson Nayeem Akhtar to the interlocutors' suggestion that three regional councils should be established for Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh and that these regional councils should also be armed with certain legislative, financial and administrative powers under the overall control and supervision of the state government which would be autonomous for all practical purposes.
All these three Kashmiri leaders not only denounced the interlocutors for their suggestion that the needles of the clock cannot be turned back, but also condemned them for their regional councils' formulation and recommendation. Each one of them said that the interlocutors' recommendation, if accepted and implemented, would only pave the way for the state's disintegration. Each one of them also declared that their respective formations would not allow the creation of regional councils in the state come what may.
Former chief interlocutor Dilip Padgaonkar has taken note of the reactions of the Kashmiri leaders to the regional councils' suggestion. In fact, reflecting on these reactions, he in his latest political essay "A new narrative for J&K"(Times of India, June 12) has written like this: "The second recommendation that attracted much adverse comment, especially in the Valley, is about devolution of powers to three regional councils and further down to elected bodies at the level of districts and panchayats. Such a devolution was favoured by Sheikh Abdullah, by his friend and sympathizer Jayaprakash Narayan, by three commissions headed by distinguished legal minds (Gajendragadkar, S M Sikri and J N Wazir), and by the NC and the PDP at various points of time. Our report argues that such a devolution alone will help to preserve the unity, territorial integrity and special character of J&K".
Now that the so-called mainstream Kashmiri leaders have vehemently opposed the interlocutors' suggestion, it is time for everyone in Jammu and Ladakh to demand complete separation from Kashmir saying they cannot have any truck with those who oppose the empowerment of the grossly ignored and politically marginalized Jammu and Ladakh. In fact, this is the most appropriate time to demand separation from Kashmir. Even the Government of India would not be able to oppose this demand of separation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
