news details |
|
|
| GOI putting Interlocutors Report on website exposes non seriousness of GOI /MOH | | | Daya Sagar | 6/19/2012 11:41:16 PM |
| It was on 13th Oct 2010 that Ministry of Home Affairs GOI appointed a group of three Interlocutors following the visit of all party delegation to Jammu and Kashmir from September 20 to September 22 and as was announced by Home Minister on 25th September. The terms of reference of the interlocutors were not made that explicitly / clearly public. Only thing the people could understand was that the GROUP of THREE had to feel the pulse of the people of J&K and communicate the same to Government of India. How would government of India proceed on their report too was left un disclosed. But one thing was sure that the people who were really concerned about the affairs of J&K ( particularly the state of affairs that people of J&K were living in for last over 20 years ) did believe that the need for appointing the interlocutors had resulted not out of unemployment or lack of development or socio - economic disparities. The need had surely resulted out of the conceptions that the affairs of J&K State were suffering due to some local conflicts pertaining to the history of accession of princely State of J&K with India, it's relationship with India Dominion , the constitutional status of J&K wrt to India and the way " J&K Affairs (Kashmir" valley affairs ) had been miscarried over the years.. Had the need for appointment of the Interlocutors been for Development and unemployment like issues then GOI / State Government had many senior and professional people in the Government and associate institutions to look into. So, after the report was submitted by Dileep Padgaonkar , the team leader of ( Chairman of the 3 Member Interlocutor Committee - Dileep Padgaonkar, Radha Kumar and M. M. Ansari)) to Union Home Minister P. Chidambram on 12th Oct 2011 people were anxiously waiting to know about the contents of the report and the plans of GOI as regards the contents of the report.
With Dileep Padgaonkar in the team people expected that this report would not be like the report of the likes of the Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh's 5th working Group on J&K ( Justice Saghir Ahmed working group ) that did no good and instead pushed the people of J&K into more confusions. Any how nothing much fruitful was expected from the interlocutors report too , but still inview of the reputation that atleast Dileep Padgaonkar enjoyed as a journalist one would expect that he would do some independent research and come out from the web of the information net that has been woven over the years with the "yarn" produced from "the same class" of campaigns and with New Delhi too not handling the affairs seriously.
As regards the terms of reference the same has been mentioned in the report made public on the web site of MHA GOI on 24th May 2012 as :: " mandate given to the group was to hold wide ranging discussions with all sections of opinion in Jammu and Kashmir in order to identify the political contours of a solution and the road map towards it. In order to fullfil the mandate the group was asked spend about a week in each month in the State" . The team claims that they had been mandated to identify the road map towards a solution ie. To suggest a solution. Though the mandate claimed is not matching what had been then reported in the media in reference to Omar Abdullah as well as the Home Minister Chidambram , but in case the disclosed mandate is to be believed , then going by the quality of contents of the report , it has been more of disappoint to many.
Going by the face of report it need not be discussed. But since such incomplete documents can otherwise be used by the trouble makers to propagate more doubts and misunderstandings , the report is being discussed here.
What was GOI doing with the report for last 7 month since it was submitted in 12th Oct 2011 ?
No doubt the opinions of individuals could be different. Leave aside technicalities ,but in the case a report / opinions also reflect ignorance or mis quotes of some very vital facts / technical references by the authors, then there are sure reasons for outright rejection. More particularly when the quotes go against the constitutional and national interests.
i. The Interlocutors' report refers the Pakistan Occupied areas of J&K ( Kashmir ) as Pakistan Administered part / Areas of Kashmir ( J&K ). How could GOI accept the report with such a reference and then even loaded it on the website of Ministry of Home Affairs is a question ?
ii. The Interlocutors report in a way goes against the Feb 1994 Resolution of Indian Parliament on J&K that resolves for liberation of Pakistan Occupied Areas of J&K . The report does not treat those areas as occupied areas and instead names the areas as Pakistan Administered Areas. How could ministry of P. Chidambram over look such acts of the Interlocutors is a question ?
iii. The report raises questions on J&K being integral part of India , what to talk of retaining the report in files for 7 months and then making the contents public, that to on the website of MHA.
iv. The interlocutors report mentions the people who were uprooted from Pakistan occupied areas of J&K in 1947 as MIGRANTS where as it vide an order of 1950 signed by Sheikh Abdullah Prime Minister that the people uprooted / thrown away from the Pakistan Occupied Areas of J&K were named as Displaced Persons and still they for all technical reference purpose are known as POK DPs . This shows the casual approach of the Interlocutors. Those families who went to Pakistan from J&K in 1947 were named as MIGRANTS by local government under same order of 1950.
v. The interlocutors report says that the People who have come to this side from Pakistan Administered Kashmir have no right to vote in elections and seek employment in J&K. This is totally wrong. POJK displaced persons do hold the status of State Subjects of J&K / Permanent residents of J&K and hence have right to vote for J&K Assembly , have right to employment in J&K Services , have right to admission in state professional colleges and right to property. This clearly demonstrates that the interlocutor team has not made any attempt to know about more realities of J&K and were / are still ignorant of the facts even after spending one complete years on the job. It appears that they were pre occupies with concepts and did not make use of any information that was provided to them by local people from out side the conventional resource teams and those particularly from areas outside Kashmir Valley.
vi. All through the report , the interlocutors ,in a way, refer the issues and affairs of Jammu and Kashmir as Kashmir affairs and still propose to suggest ways and means for bringing peace to J&K.
vii. With this type of understandings and levels of information that the Interlocutors have displayed , the inferences drawn and proposals made by them can surely not deliver any good for the people of J&K. The manner in which the events have carried on and the way the report has been put on the website of Home Ministry, it appears that either MOH was not serious about the objective behind appointment of interlocutors or the Home Minister of India has not gone through the report of the Interlocutors. Had the MOH of India read the contents of the report, the ministry would have out rightly rejected.
( Daya Sagar , a Sr coloumnist of Kashmir affairs and a social activist [email protected]. 09419196096 )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
