news details |
|
|
| Opposition in Kashmir to Soz, Bhalla, Taj & Mir | | Politics Of Separatism | | Rustam
Jammu, Aug 23: Some "opinion-makers" in Kashmir (read votaries of greater autonomy or separatists) have upped their ante and taken on JKPCC chief Saif-ud-Din Soz, Revenue Minister Raman Bhalla, PHE Minister Taj Mohi-ud-Din and Agriculture Minister Ghulam Hassan Mir. They have described these Congress leaders and Democratic Party (Nationalist) president as anti-Kashmir and stooges of Delhi. Mir has not only been dismissed as a stooge of Delhi but also a man of intelligence agencies and a Congress plant in the Government.
What actually provoked these "opinion-makers" in Kashmir were some recent statements purportedly made by the JKPCC president and these three Ministers in the Omar Abdullah-led coalition Government. They have criticized Soz by saying that it was he who stalled the revocation of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) at the behest of New Delhi. Soz had on August 9 expressed his views on the AFSPA and said that this Act could be revoked as it was invoked as a temporary measure to curb fissiparous tendencies. A section of print media had reported that Soz had claimed that it was because of his intervention that the AFSPA could not be revoked. Soz had on the same day clarified that he never said that it was he who had stalled revocation of the AFSPA. But the "Opinion-makers" in Kashmir have refused to give any credence to the Soz's clarification. They continue to attack Soz saying he played anti-Kashmir role by siding with those who were for the retention of AFSPA.
These "opinion-makers" in Kashmir have turned against Bhalla and Taj Mohi-ud-Din because they have reportedly said that they would withdraw their signatures from the draft report, which was prepared a few weeks ago by the 8-member Cabinet Sub-Committee constituted by the State Government to examine the Working Group's report on the Centre-State relations and suggest which of its recommendations could be accepted or rejected. The draft report, which was signed by four NC Ministers, including the Finance Minister and convener of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, and two Congress Ministers, Bhalla and Mohi-Ud-Din, had reportedly recommended autonomy for the State. Two Congress Ministers, who are also members of this committee, had not signed this report. They are Health Minister Sham Lal Sharma and Tourism Minister Nawang Rigzin Jora. There were reports in a section of print media that both Bhalla and Mohi-ud-Din had written a letter to the convener of the committee asking him to convene meting of the committee as early as possible as they wanted to withdraw their signatures from the draft report or record a note of dissent. It is this reporting that upset some "opinion-makers" in Kashmir. They have said that it was the intervention of Delhi that forced these two Congress Ministers to think in terms of dissociating themselves from the draft report.
They are equally critical of Mir. The only fault of Mir was that he criticized those who had been demanding autonomy and self-rule for the State. He had said that these solutions were not practicable and had added that those who had been demanding autonomy or self-rule were only playing with the sentiments of the people of Kashmir. Besides, Mir had accused Sheikh Abdullah of creating mess in Kashmir. Not only this, Mir had also lambasted those Kashmiri leaders who had been interfering in the external affairs of the country. He had said: The people of Jammu and Kashmir had nothing to do with the problems between India and Pakistan. He was perhaps the first Kashmiri leader who had taken such a line. The fact of the matter is that Mir had talked sense and put things in correct perspective. It was this line of Mir that has not been taken kindly by some Kashmiri "opinion-makers". Even Mustafa Kamaal of the NC had lambasted Mir and described him as a man of Indian intelligence agencies. It is quite understandable.
What does all this show? It shows that these "opinion-makers" in Kashmir are opposed to everything Indian and that they long for a dispensation that is independent of India and that is theocratic in character. Neither Jammu nor Ladakh endorses the idea of the State getting autonomy or self-rule or a dispensation outside the Indian Constitutional framework. This is a STARK REALITY. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
