Jammu and Kashmir: News and Discussion

[The Messiah]

aaaaaooooouccccccccchhhhhhhhhh............
Jammu & Kashmir's future with India: Deoband - The Times of India

He is right. Media should convey this to delusional srinagar youths.

 

[ajtr]

He is right. Media should convey this to delusional srinagar youths.

This must be conveyed to leftist media first who carries the torch for delusional srinagar youths and separatists.

 

[The Messiah]

This must be conveyed to leftist media first who carries the torch for delusional srinagar youths and separatists.

you mean deluded extreme left right ?

 

[ejazr]

Kashmir's future with India: Deoband
Kashmir's furure with India: Deoband

Srinagar: The Darul Uloom Deoband has declared that Kashmir's future lies with India. The outfit is currently trying to usher in peace in the valley that has recently been ravaged with violence.

Leading clerics at the conclave in the Deoband seminary campus also sent out a clear message that the unrest in the valley shall not be used to fuel separatism.

"It is our resolution that if Kashmir is ours then the Kashmiris are also our people and we should try and win their confidence and their hearts and end the wrongs and injustice. Our basic demand vis-a-vis Kashmir is that whatever demands of theirs can be met within the Constitutional framework should be met," said Moulana Mehmood Madni, leader, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind.

"We welcome for their statement on human rights. But we don't agree with the political side of it. Kashmir is an international dispute," said Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Chairman, Hurriyat Conference.

The Deoband has always been a nationalist organisation, supporting anti-extremism and opposed to the Partition of the country.

The outfit also demanded for Kashmir's demand to be met, an end to civilian killings, the withdrawal of security forces from civilian areas and the repealing of the harsh military laws.

As the biggest religious seminary in South Asia, the Deoband has always played a major role in shaping Muslim opinion in the country and has a large influence in Kashmir.

 

[ejazr]

There is another rally expected by the Jamiat-ulema-i-Hind on Oct 31 in Delhi. And then a possible delagation to visit different parts of J&K.

Earlier there were also extensive civil orgs interaction in Kashmir and also in Delhi. Looks like this is all part of the track 2 dialouge being set in motion. But the most important thing is that the momentum is not lost till a politcal solution is finalised.

 

[Rahul92]

as pakistan encourages U.S & China influencing on Kashmir the issue will raise more stronger

 

[S.A.T.A]

Kashmir's future with India will rest on India's desire to treat as a part of India.Do we treat it as part of India or a colonial entity which somehow needs special constitutional provisions for it to feel Indian.What has all the constitutional provisions so far led to,only to hear omar say Kashmir had acceded to India but not merged.Why have the so called national parties ceded ground to the separatists,what prevented the BJP or the Congress from marching a couple of million Indians into the valley to protest against separatist forces.I reckon Gandhi or Bose or Sardar would have done it.

Mollycoddling any segment of anti Indians will never lead to any satisfactory result.Its time to really integrate Kashmir into the national mainstream,scarp the constitutional provision that enable separateness,cease all talks about Kashmir being up for negotiation.No part of India can ever be up for any sort of negotiation.period .....

 

[Energon]

Kashmir's future with India will rest on India's desire to treat as a part of India.Do we treat it as part of India or a colonial entity which somehow needs special constitutional provisions for it to feel Indian.What has all the constitutional provisions so far led to,only to hear omar say Kashmir had acceded to India but not merged.Why have the so called national parties ceded ground to the separatists,what prevented the BJP or the Congress from marching a couple of million Indians into the valley to protest against separatist forces.I reckon Gandhi or Bose or Sardar would have done it.

Mollycoddling any segment of anti Indians will never lead to any satisfactory result.Its time to really integrate Kashmir into the national mainstream,scarp the constitutional provision that enable separateness,cease all talks about Kashmir being up for negotiation.No part of India can ever be up for any sort of negotiation.period .....

If this were possible it would have been done already. The ground reality is that Article 370 cannot be jettisoned.
Taking this into consideration it seems that a slow constructive approach with limited but constant engagement is the best option. Jingoism aside, the Indian establishment has neither the capability nor the organized cohesiveness required to launch a forceful operation without a catastrophic outcome. A process based on economic incentives and healthy growth seems to offer the best chances of success.

 

[ajtr]

Light at the end of Jawahar tunnel​

Illustration: Hadimani
PMO BEAT

By R. Prasannan

A Telangana or a Sharm-el-Sheik syndrome is haunting Manmohan Singh. Bitten twice over those 'bold' decisions, he is shying thrice. Deliberations are deferred to delegations; decisions to groups of ministers.

Singh is a democrat. But democracy in overdose is dangerous. When the barbarian hordes were knocking on the gates of Rome, its senators were debating strategy. History repeats itself as farce. When that pyromaniac militant Mast Gul torched Charar-e-Sharief, Indian Parliament debated an adjournment motion. The comical interlude was opposition leader A.B. Vajpayee confused his name with Dost Mohammed, the 19th century Afghan hero who wiped out an entire army of British India, save a surgeon.

In three months Kashmiris have thrown stones sufficient to block the Jawahar tunnel which links Kashmir Valley to the rest of India. The police and the paramilitary have lobbed enough tear-gas shells to make all Kashmiris cry. Yet Singh could not decide, even by a toss of coin, whether the Armed Forces Special Powers Act was good, bad or ugly. Pranab Mukherjee and A.K. Antony think it is good; P. Chidambaram and Veerappa Moily think certain clauses are bad; others see unadulterated ugliness in it. At one stage, it was agreed that the Act would be withdrawn from certain districts. There was no Army in those districts, said opponents.

Singh called an all-party meeting next, and sent an all-party delegation. They returned with the impressions of the moment. Now what?
No one knows the Kashmiri mind. Once Nehru asked Ghulam Mohammed Bakshi how many Kashmiris were with him. Bakshi said 40 lakh. That was the total population of Kashmir. So Nehru asked him how many were with his opponent Sheikh Abdullah. "Four million," said Bakshi.

There is no dearth of ideas on solving Kashmir. Everybody who has driven past North and South Blocks has proffered Kashmir punditry (no pun intended). Blue-water admirals have written on how mountain fences can prevent infiltration. Mediamen who mistake majors for major-generals have dished out military strategy. NGOs, foreign-funded and home-grown, have been seminaring, synergising, sensitising, empowering, touch-basing, leveraging and luncheoning over Kashmir.

Singh's five round-table working groups (ever come across oblong tables or non-working groups?) have given reports on how to build social confidence, improve ties across the LoC, economically develop Jammu and Kashmir, and how to govern it well. These were headed by eminent men like Hamid Ansari (before he became vice-president), former foreign secretary M.K. Rasgotra and Prime Minister's economic adviser C. Rangarajan. As they advised, Singh has been pumping money, and Omar has been using it to computerise land records, develop entrepreneurship, monitor file movements, set up information kiosks and e-govern the state.

None of the groups had anything in the language that people understand—the language of politics. Hope the politicians' delegation filled that void.

Tailpiece: Even when insurgency peaked in the mid-1990s, a couple of hotels flourished in Srinagar, catering for the hordes of visiting newsmen. This was convenient to both the Army and the militants; they could easily flash messages, manage tours and distribute press statements and Army rum.

One curfew night a visiting newsman was faxing his report from the hotel reception when the phone rang. Seeing no one around, he picked it up. The caller, assuming he was addressing the manager, said, "Tell all cameramen that there will be a grenade-throw at 7 in Lal Chowk." By now the manager arrived and grabbed the receiver. On getting the message, he shouted into the mouthpiece, "Bewakoof, don't you know journalists don't get up so early?"
"Theek hai, we'll have it at 8." Click!:emot15:

 

[ajtr]

Now listen to the chinese voice in india from our chennai..The hindu....the chinese stooge.

The Kashmir imbroglio: thinking the unthinkable​

There are no 'resources' of any kind from Kashmir, the supply of which is crucial for our well-being. The American people are dependent on oil from the Middle East, and that is the real reason for their hegemonic control over the region. Indians have no such reason to retain control of Kashmir.

If Indian troops are out of Kashmir, would it jeopardise the security of Indians? Not really. The mountainous barrier between the Kashmir Valley and India is a better defensive line to guard than the present long untenable frontier of the Line of Control.

It has taken Great Britain 60 years to realise it is no longer the centre of an empire. Indian rulers have yet to realise they are no longer in charge of 'the jewel in the crown.' Indians are not the leaders of Asia — the Chinese are. If India wishes to be considered a good second to China, it should not fritter away its resources on nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, or Commonwealth Games.

And India should not play dirty pool with China, and harbour Tibetan governments-in-exile.

Let it not be forgotten that one of the causes of the India-China border war of 1962 was the covert activities of the CIA from Indian bases.

clearly shows who pays the hindu handsome money..............

 

[S.A.T.A]

If this were possible it would have been done already. The ground reality is that Article 370 cannot be jettisoned.
Taking this into consideration it seems that a slow constructive approach with limited but constant engagement is the best option. Jingoism aside, the Indian establishment has neither the capability nor the organized cohesiveness required to launch a forceful operation without a catastrophic outcome. A process based on economic incentives and healthy growth seems to offer the best chances of success.

Indian political groups have both the resource and the organizational ability to mobilize the kind of response i was talking about,but yes there is a consensus of unwillingness to venture such a strategy.However the constant and visibly vociferous refrain of Azadi and our unwillingness to counter it on the streets will lead to greater tragedy in the future.Fear and proprietary must not prevent us from the taking the right decisions and making right moves.Talks about autonomy and back channel dialogue etc only vitiate the atmosphere against us and undermine our expressed intent about Kashmir being a settled matter.

Article 370 is completely redundant and is a disabling impediment in any attempt to integrate Kashmir into 21st century Indian economy.If anybody thinks Kashmir is going to build a real economy rowing tourist houseboats or ferrying pilgrims then they are seriously mistaken,nor can Kashmir envisage log term growth oriented,job creating economic development on central govt hand out.Even Kashmir were a independent country they have to attract private capital,private entrepreneurs willing to invest in the state and generate long term job and growth.no Indian entrepreneur,even an Ambani,will ever invest in state where even the most basic of assets(a piece of land)is not in his possession.There are also several legal issues,result of the above said Article,which pose serious question about integrating Kashmir's economy with the rest of the Indian mainstream.

Article 370 must go and tomorrow Kashmiris(or those who support the Article)will thank their fellow countrymen for showing wisdom.

 

[ejazr]

US favours India sorting out Kashmir with Pakistan: Krishna - The Economic Times

NEW DELHI: India today dismissed the possibility of a swap with the US on Kashmir problem for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council and said that Washington feels that it is an issue to be sorted bilaterally with Pakistan.

External Affairs Minister S M Krishna also asserted that India's role as non-permanent member, which it won in the UNSC yesterday, will not not encumbered by any issues.

He does not not share the impression that the current phase of the problem in the Kashmir valley and its handling gave India a different image in the outside world.

"To my mind it sounds all speculative. These are kites being flown. There is no no truth in it. The US has been conveying to India that we should sort out the issue. If similar suggestions are put we take them with seriousness," Krishna said at a breakfast meeting with editors here.

He was asked about reports that US President Barack Obama, who is to visit India next week, wants India to sort settle the with Pakistan and that Washington would help India get permanent membership of the UNSC.

He was also asked whether the handling of the Kashmir issue in its current phase harmed its image and could encumber its role as a non-permanent member of the Security Council.

The minister said India's relationship with the US was not not dependent on its ties with other countries including Pakistan.

"India, US relationship are between two democracies which value rule of law and there are various circumstances that bring us closely together. They (US) have their own compulsions in Afghanistan and that is where the US will need Pakistan much more now than before," he said.

Krishna said the US also understands India's constructive role in Afganistan. "So the US has a special relationship with India and they recognise India's efforts and they encourage it."

 

[ejazr]

I think the article 370 debate is a non-starter. The Kashmir sepratists are not asking for article 370, they are asking for secession. They don't give a damn wether it is restored or not. Frankly, I feel that the BJP should realise the futility on harping on this and come around with a concerete vision on what subjects the state can handle and what the centre should.

Besides article 370 is applied in various parts around India to give assurance to minority tribal and ethinc groups like in Nagaland, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh e.tc. Will the BJP now ask for the removal of article 370 from here as well?

The point is to integrate Kashmir economically, culturally and emotionally with India first. Then politcal integration will follow. In 1948, the elected J&K assembly led by Sheikh Abdullah ratifed the instrument of ascession without any coersion on India's part.

What prevents Ambani from partnering with Kashmiri pandits and investing in the valley? It will provide an excellent oppurtunity for the pandits to find their feet and return to the valley in one go. In the 2006-2008 years there were international investment confrences were Kashmirs from US and UK were invited and grand plans made to allow foreign investment. The J&K parliament can sponsor its own bills on allowing land aquistion to be done. Let me remind people that the rest of India is not that easy to do business either when it comes to land ownership. We all have seen the massive problems in West Bengal with the TATA nano land acquistion

But before economic rehab, you need peace and infrastructure. This all comes down to a COIN startegy and the need to work in partneship with the locals and have a sound civil-military partnership.

 

[S.A.T.A]

talking about integrating Kashmir with India socio-economically and politically without any giving a relook at the article 370 is like putting the cart before the horse,Like i mentioned in another thread if 60 years on if laws have to enforced on daily basis instead them merely becoming applies like as in the rest of the country,proves how redundant the constitutional provision has become.they were enacted at a time when such a provision was relevant and was an enabling factor.However things have changed and it would be foolhardy to continue to hold on to provisions that are past their utility and relevance.Yes the separatists don't care about it one way and its abrogation will not make any difference to them,however our effort to accomplish the so called integration of Kashmir into the mainstream will certainly receive a shot in the arm.

Kashmir cannot be fully integrated into any facet of modern Indian society unless the most basic legal provisions that pertains to inter state relationship in the Indian union and that of state of jammu &Kashmir are synchronized.The logic that the valley would be flooded by non kashmiri's without the support of the article 370 is utterly absurd and stands in complete contradiction to past 6 years of our contemporary history.

The nation must first undo constitutional provisions that prevent full integration before actually setting about with plans and prgrammes for such an integration.the case of TATA Nano only proves how arduous it is to attract and maintain quality investment even without any constitutional bottlenecks.

Stop believing that Kashmir is different,that would be a start.

 

[ajtr]

Kashmir: Integral truths​

No chief minister started his tenure with so much goodwill within his state and all over the country as Omar Abdullah in 2009. It is a pity that this was frittered away in so short a time, thanks first to the flip-flop over the so-called Shopian rape and murder case in 2009 and to the stone-pelting in 2010. Having interacted with his legendary grandfather, and more closely with his father, I had earnestly wished that he be successful.
Nowadays we do not have political leaders like Lal Bahadur Shastri who as railway minister resigned owning moral responsibility for a major train disaster. The trend now is to disown responsibility and pass the buck. We need not hold against Omar his version of events in his address to the state legislature on October 6. I would even praise him for boldly asserting that he is not a puppet of the Centre, often alleged by separatists in the Valley for CMs of the state. As a duly elected CM, he functioned with due independence. Yet there are two facts which cannot be ignored. Till the evening before Omar was sworn in as CM, it was being said that the party preferred his father for the job. Farooq Abdullah categorically stated on a media channel that he would be taking the oath as CM next morning. Something happened in Delhi that night and Omar became CM the following day. During the stone-pelting crisis, there was widespread opinion in the state and outside that Farooq would not have allowed things to go out of control. It was widely felt that Omar must go, but he survived because of a lone helpline from Delhi.
One should make allowances for Omar being young with little experience in state politics. In 2008, his uncalled for and misleading emotional outburst in Parliament during the Amarnath controversy — "Jaan Denge par Zamin nahin Denge" — only fuelled the agitation in Jammu. He must have been under tremendous strain for the past few months and this should not be ignored while commenting on his recent address to the Assembly. However, some of the issues raised by him are disturbing from the national viewpoint. The record must be set right. Pandering to separatist sentiments will not help build political support. It will only whet the appetite for secession.
Omar's statement that Kashmir acceded to India and, unlike Hyderabad and Junagadh, did not merge with India, has an unfortunate connotation. Over 500 Princely States merged with India. Mentioning only Hyderabad and Junagadh is making insinuations, in line with Pakistan propaganda. There was a common Instrument of Accession for all Princely States acceding to India. Hari Singh was facing a very critical situation. Pakistani invaders were approaching Srinagar and he had fled to Jammu. He desperately needed India's help and was hardly in a position to make any stipulations. He duly signed the instrument. This was fully supported by Sheikh Abdullah, the most popular leader of Kashmir. Later, it was also ratified by the Kashmir Constituent Assembly. At the time of signing the Instrument of Accession, letters were exchanged between the Maharaja and Mountbatten in which special provisions were sought and accepted. Letters do not have the same legal validity as a formal instrument. Yet Article 370 of the Constitution ensures that the provisions agreed upon were duly upheld. In these circumstances, the hair-splitting distinction between accession and merger is meaningless. It may be mentioned that in the earlier two centuries many Princely States, including Kashmir, acceded to the British Crown but the people of those states were not given British nationality. It was refreshing that during the nuclear debate in Parliament in 2008, Omar rightly won accolade for asserting his Indian nationality.
Omar's irritation over Kashmir being described as an integral part of India was uncalled for. That has been our national stand and not that of any particular party as such. Neither his father nor his grandfather ever contested this. On February 22, 1994 the Indian Parliament passed a unanimous resolution asserting that Kashmir is an integral part of India and directing that Kashmir territory illegally occupied by Pakistan be liberated. The National Conference representative in Parliament supported that resolution.
Much is being made by Omar and his party of autonomy. The fact is that Kashmir enjoys more autonomy than any state in India but has the least autonomy below the state level. A regional political imbalance persists and is sought to be perpetuated by the embargo on delimitation of constituencies. For 49,725 voters, Kashmir has one MLA but Jammu has one MLA for 66,521 voters. This means that despite having 1,77,153 more voters, Jammu has nine MLAs less in the legislature than Kashmir. Whereas Panchayat Raj functions in every state, it is yet to be established in J&K. The Right to Information Act has not yet been made fully functional in the state. In the name of autonomy a reversion to the pre-1953 constitutional status is sought. This will entail removal of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the Election Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General. There is also a demand for an elected governor from the state and doing away with IAS, IPS and other Central services. The changes effected through due process of law prescribed by the Constitution, and ratified by the state legislature, are sought to be scrapped in the name of autonomy. These changes were endorsed by the Indira-Sheikh accord. They also received the people's support in the Sheikh's overwhelming victory in the 1977 state elections, regarded by all as free and fair. It is strange that Sheikh Abdullah's progenies, who attained political power for being his descendants, now want to undo what he did in the interests of the state and are chasing a mirage of autonomy. It is also pertinent that Central per capita aid is the highest in Kashmir, many times more than some other states in the country. Removal of the jurisdiction of the Comptroller and Auditor General would mean absence of financial accountability. Omar has sought regional autonomy for Jammu and Ladakh regions and has urged splitting them into sub-regions of Jammu, Rajouri, Poonch, Doda, Kargil and Leh, which would virtually be a division on communal lines. It is interesting that the Valley is not required to be split into the plains and mountain regions, obviously because of commonalty of religion.
The need in J&K is to restore order, remove governance deficit, commence political dialogue and meet the legitimate aspirations of all stakeholders in the state, within the framework of the Indian Constitution. It must not be lost sight of that the separatists constitute a minority in the state. Their influence is generally confined to the Valley, excluding the Gujjars and Bakherwals, living in the mountains. The recent stone-pelting agitation was confined to the Valley, without any Gujjar or Bakherwal participation.
- The author, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir.

 

[S.A.T.A]

Omar is inept and his ineptness is further compounded by his innate naivety.Omar is a good example why dynastic progeny cannot makeup for natural leadership of the mass,somethings that is not in the curriculum of Elite schools where kings in waiting like Omars(or Rahuls)are groomed.Omar is a hypocrite and cannot make a stand and stay firm on it.His utterly stupid talk with regards to accession vs merger has reduced him to the status of proverbial 'Dhobi Ka Kutta'.................Omar is neither 'Ghar ka na Ghat ka'.

 

[ejazr]

An editorial from one of the more balances newspapers in Kashmir

Kashmir Images :: Why coercion?

Once again a section of population is overtly and covertly being instigated to go for coercive measures to force people to follow and adhere to the programmes of a particular political group. Even as one doesn't hold anything against anybody's politics, but what is really worrying is the way a culture of anarchy is being promoted here by according moral sanction to using violence and threat of violence against one's own people. For the time-being, the tactic may be working for those who are calling the shots, but in the longer run, the kind of behaviour it is going to breed is not good for any healthy society. Even today this behaviour, as it translates itself on the roads and streets and market-places, breeds more discontent than goodwill and people have already started talking about it. Their frustrations are somewhat muted for some invisible fears are still lurking out there, but it won't take long before this anger becomes shrill to erode away whatever little remains of the credibility of the people who have for long based their politics on inflicting trouble and misery on the common people.
In political action, one rarely enjoys the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. But from the moralistic point-of-view, the choice has to and must always be for the latter. Those who have seen or studied the evolution of politics in Kashmir will surely have countless instances to support and substantiate that whenever self-interest of an organizer clashed with the public interest of the supporting population, personal salvation has historically been preferred over the mass salvation. Indeed this is true not only of Kashmir but elsewhere also the politics has been no different. People, who bombard us with heaps of moralistic advice on the ethics of means and ends, rarely talk about their own experiences in the perpetual struggle of life and change!
Today, they want common masses to accept that their (leaders') self-interest and the public interest of have-nots (people) are same and that it is the 'moral choices' made by the former that are in the best interest of the latter. Even if one may choose not to question it, but one may still ask: then why this coercion? What not allow people freedom of making their own choices -- whether they want to send children to schools for taking exams at least (it's exam time now and certainly most crucial period of the academic calendar), or if they want to earn for their families after having reached a point where otherwise the choice is boiled down between starvation and beggary? Ordinary people's reality is not what is true of those who have taken over the responsibility of deciding for them. This needs to be understood and appreciated, for the continued refusal to acknowledge the masses' difficulties and hardships is turning them away from the 'sentiment' which otherwise is far too closer to their hearts than even to those who are in the leadership roles.
Life is how one lives it and it is the story of means and ends. So whenever people think of social or political change, the questions pertaining to means and ends are bound to arise. People of action view the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. They ask of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means only whether they will work. In Kashmir these questions are seen as an anathema; nobody asks them and nobody is encouraged to ask. The great atomic physicist Neils Bohr, while stating his position on 'dogmatism', which unfortunately is being marketed as a "great virtue" here, said: "Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question." Mankind's hopes lie not in rigidity but in acceptance of the great law of change; general understanding of the principles of change alone will provide us clues for rational action and a realistic relationship between means and ends and how one determines the other. Remember, it is no coincidence that the question mark is an inverted plough, breaking up the hard soil of old beliefs and preparing for the new growth.

 

[ajtr]

Not all in J&K are Kashmiris​

October 14, 2010 10:24:13 PM

G Parthasarathy

Let us not forget 45 per cent of the people of Jammu & Kashmir are Dogras, Punjabis, Paharis, Bakarwals, Gujjars, Buddhists and Shias

There has been a basic flaw in New Delhi's approach to an 'internal dialogue' with people in the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious State of Jammu & Kashmir. This 'internal dialogue' has been almost exclusively with the leadership of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference based in the Kashmir Valley. This, despite the fact that roughly 45 per cent of the people of Jammu & Kashmir are not 'Kashmiris' who live in the Kashmir Valley, but are Dogras, Punjabis, Paharis, Bakarwals, Gujjars, Buddhist Ladakhis and Balti Shias in Kargil.

Paradoxically, the Kashmir Valley where one now hears calls for 'azadi' was ruled ruthlessly for over 700 years by Mongols, Afghans, Mughals, Sikhs and Dogras before people experienced democracy and freedom under India's Constitution. Moreover, while communal harmony has prevailed in the multi-religious Jammu and Ladakh regions, it is in the Kashmir Valley alone, which boasts of a proud history of secular 'Kashmiriyat', that 4,00,000 members of the minority community of Pandits have been forced to flee their homes by a Pakistan-sponsored jihad backed indirectly by the All-Party Hurriyat Conference.

The Charter of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference explicitly proclaims its aim as "the build-up of a society based on Islamic values" in keeping with "the Muslim majority character of the State". The Hurriyat's primary objective is described as a "struggle to secure for the people of Jammu & Kashmir the exercise of the right of self determination in accordance with the UN Charter and the resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council. However, the exercise of the right of self-determination shall also include the right to independence."

Every major outfit in the Hurriyat, which has splintered and split periodically, is associated with terrorist groups across the Line of Control, ranging from Al Umar Mujahideen, which backs the 'moderate' Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, to Hizb-ul Mujahideen of the 'radical' Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Pakistan's military leadership in Rawalpindi decides who leads the Hurriyat Conference. Mirwaiz Umer Farooq took on the leadership when President Pervez Musharraf was daggers drawn with Syed Ali Shah Geelani's mentor, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the Amir of Pakistan's Jamat-e-Islami. Now that Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is at peace with the Jamat-e-Islami, Mirwaiz Umer Farooq plays second fiddle to Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The puppets may be in the Valley, but the puppeteers are in Rawalpindi.

With the PDP emerging as a viable alternative to the National Conference as a mainstream party, both organisations have sought to match the rhetoric of the Pakistan-backed separatists by demanding a return to the position that prevailed in 1953 before the provisions of the Constitution of India were made applicable to the State. Some of our misguided 'liberals' advocate the conceding of 'maximum autonomy'.

They forget that what is being asked for by a section of the people of the State, exclusively from the Valley, with little or no support from people in the Jammu and Ladakh regions, is a framework wherein the permit system for the entry of people from other parts of India into Jammu & Kashmir could be revived, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Election Commission and the Auditor and Comptroller-General of India will no longer extend to the State and duties could be imposed on goods imported into Jammu & Kashmir from the rest of the country.

If 'maximum autonomy' were to be granted, Jammu & Kashmir would become the only part of the country where the provisions of Articles 356 and 357 of the Constitution would not be applicable. The Governor would be appointed not by the Union Government but by the State Legislature. Just before the Mirza Afzal Beg-G Parthasarathi Accord was signed on November 13, 1974, Sheikh Abdullah told Mrs Indira Gandhi's representative: "I hope I have made it clear to you that I can assume office only on the basis of the position as it existed in 1953." Mrs Gandhi merely agreed to discuss this with Sheikh Abdullah, who assumed office soon thereafter.

The recent demonstrations in parts of the Kashmir Valley have had no resonance elsewhere in the State. They are being orchestrated to pick up momentum and reach full throttle when US President Barack Obama is in India. The salient demand has been the revocation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, strangely espoused vigorously at a time when the Army is no longer deployed for internal security anywhere in the Valley.

The Hurriyat leaders and their mentors across the LoC know that with the Army out of the security equation, the writ of the Indian state can be challenged with impunity. The sort of autonomy being demanded by the Hurriyat is seen in Jammu and Ladakh as an instrument to achieve permanent hegemony of the Valley population and fulfil the Hurriyat's aspirations for a "society based on Islamic values". Any initiative to reach out to people across Jammu & Kashmir has to be based on securing a consensus in all regions of the State.

While demanding 'azadi' for 'Kashmiris', the Hurriyat has been remarkably reticent of what is happening in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Surely those demanding 'azadi' should be asked whether their espousal of 'azadi' also covers the people of Gilgit and Baltistan. The Resolution passed by the European Parliament on May 24, 2007, slams the domination of officials appointed by Islamabad in the affairs of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and notes that the 1974 PoK Constitution "forbids any political activity that is not in accordance with the doctrine of Jammu & Kashmir as part of Pakistan".

The European Parliament Resolution further notes that while the "Gilgit- Baltistan region enjoys no form of democratic representation whatsoever", the State of "Jammu & Kashmir (administered by India) enjoys a unique status under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, granting it greater autonomy than other States of the Indian Union". India needs to drive home these facts aggressively to people in the Kashmir Valley and to the international community, rather than being continually defensive about deliberately engineered violence.

The broad understanding reached in 'back channel' discussions between India and Pakistan between 2005 and 2007 reportedly envisaged an end to cross-border terrorism and involved equivalent autonomy on both sides of the LoC with it no longer being a barrier for the free movement of goods, services, investment and people. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should inform Parliament and the people of India about the contours of what transpired in these back channel discussions. Excessive secrecy on such a sensitive issue rarely serves the national interest.

 

[ajtr]

EDITS | Thursday, October 14, 2010 | Email | Print | | Back

Goodbye Kashmir?​

October 14, 2010 10:31:05 PM

The Pioneer Edit Desk

Usual suspects named as 'interlocutors'!

The choice of 'interlocutors' for dialogue with various sections of people representing "all shades of opinion", including the separatists, in Jammu & Kashmir as part of New Delhi's concerted eight-point initiative to restore peace in the State raises a big question mark on both intent and purpose of the Union Government, more so the Prime Minister who undoubtedly had a decisive say in the selection of these 'eminent' persons for this onerous task. It defies logic as to how a busy body journalist well past his prime, a former educationist who was once associated with Hamdard University and has been provided with a post-retirement sinecure as Information Commissioner, and an academic at Jamia Millia Islamia not known to be well-disposed towards those who believe in the unity and integrity of India, are best suited for the proposed dialogue. None of these three 'interlocutors' enjoys any credibility in either Jammu or Ladakh region; each is seen as sympathetic to the separatists in the Kashmir Valley. How can they then possibly conduct any dialogue worth its name with 'all sections' of the people and deal with 'all shades' of opinion? Such people may serve some purpose, though even that is doubtful, for what are known as 'back channel' talks where personal equations can be leveraged for bringing around recalcitrant elements. For instance, the Jamia Millia Islamia academic is known to have been in touch with Syed Ali Shah Geelani who leads the hardline faction of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference and has been steadfast in refusing to talk about anything else other than the separation of Jammu & Kashmir and its merger with Pakistan. By nominating these individuals whose credentials will convince few, if any, beyond the separatist ghettos of the Kashmir Valley, the Government has, as has been the wont of this regime headed by Mr Manmohan Singh, cut corners instead of protecting national interest. This way lies disaster, not a solution to the problem posed by separatists who are patronised by Pakistan and whose sole ambition is to create an Islamic entity out of an Indian State.

If the choice of 'interlocutors' is bad, so is the selection of members for the two task forces which are supposed to deal with the grievances of Jammu and Ladakh regions. The individuals who will be heading these task forces are politically biased and wear their preferences on their sleeves; they represent all that is horribly rotten with Jawaharlal Nehru University, Jamia Millia Islamia, Hamdard University and such institutions of claimed 'excellence' where academia is tainted by a jaundiced worldview. It is astonishing that the Government should have even thought of nominating these 'economists' and 'social scientists' to gather the views of discontented Hindus in Jammu and Buddhists and Shias in Ladakh who abhor the secessionists of Kashmir Valley and feel oppressed by Srinagar. Indeed, it is questionable whether the Prime Minister is really serious about creating the framework for putting down separatism in Jammu & Kashmir. For, the nominations announced on Wednesday are of a piece with the policy of capitulation he has pursued ever since the summer of 2004. With such 'eminent' persons now representing the Government, we might as well prepare to say goodbye to Jammu & Kashmir.

 

[S.A.T.A]

This whole political ritual of sorts of appointing 'interlocutors' for carrying out 'dialogue' with 'all section' of the Kashmir society most baffling,not the least the fact what would be the nature of such dialogue.Which section is the interlocutor going to interact with....separatists ?.what are the contours of this dialogue,will the team be preaching to the separatists the virtues of remaining with India or will they brief them about how far the union govt can go to negotiate national sovereignty.ambiguous packages and clueless interlocutors exemplify the UPA govt's complete lack of in grasp of the challenge the nation faces in the valley,they really don't have any clear objectives and all the proposals that are coming out seem to indicate one thing,that UPA wants to appear to be doing something.This is dangerous if they ends up legitimizing any groups whose very existence is inimical to our interest.

Where is the need for interlocutor when there is a legitimately elected govt in the state,which is the best interlocutor between the center and the people of the Valley.If Omar Abdullah is not able to connect with the masses and implement national objectives,which every duly elected govt is expected to do,no amount of window dressing will yield any tangible results.

Has UPA govt lost the trust in Omar govt or its sincerity in representing our core national interest with regards to jammu & Kashmir.