Jammu and Kashmir: News and Discussion

[ajtr]

THE MAHARAJA SPURNED MOUNTBATTEN'S ADVICE​

"If you do not hear Indian planes tomorrow morning, shoot me in my sleep" is what Maharaja Hari Singh told him after signing the Instrument of Accession on October 26, recalls the Maharaja's ADC in conversations with JUPINDERJIT SINGH


Captain Diwan Singh was fondly described as an adopted son of Maharaja Hari Singh. The last ADC to the last Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir is now 87 years old but remembers vividly those dramatic weeks that led to the state's accession to India. Excerpts from conversations with him are reconstructed below :

"There was considerable talk about the options before the state, of acceding either to India or Pakistan, in early 1947. But it acquired urgency during Lord Mountbatten's visit to the kingdom between June 18 and June 23. I have reasons to believe that the option was officially raised for the first time by Lord Mountbatten."

Mountbatten and the Maharaja did not discuss the issue till the second last day of the former's six-day trip to Srinagar. On that day, Maharaja Sahib and Lord Mountbatten went on a drive together. Maharaja sahib was at the wheels and there was no one else in the car. I was later told that Lord Mountbatten had asked the King to join Pakistan. "I advise you to join Pakistan," were his exact words.

We were in another car following the two of them. The Maharaja apparently asked Mountbatten for a meeting next day, i.e. June 23 at 11 am with their entire staff to discuss the issue.

The Maharaja, however, did not go to the meeting the next day. Instead, he handed over a letter to me for Lord Mountbatten in which he stated that he would not be able to go ahead with the meeting. I handed over the letter to a staff member of Lord Mountbatten. From a distance I could hear Mountbatten shouting. He was out of my ear shot but he was clearly fuming.

As the partition between India and Pakistan became a reality in August, Jammu and Kashmir was on tenterhooks though the Maharaja's heart was always with India. He would often say, "I can't send my population to the hawks" whenever the subject cropped up.

Indeed Jinnah, the first Sadar-e-riyasat of Pakistan, tried to meet the Maharaja twice. He first requested to meet him officially to discuss the Accession to Pakistan but the Maharaja declined. This was before August. Later, in September, Jinnah again wanted to spend some days in the valley on health grounds as he was not well and claimed doctors had advised him to rest for a few days and away from his usual environment. But the Maharaja again declined. He could see through Jinnah's move and was never inclined towards him.

At the same time, the Maharaja was not happy at the insistence of Pandit Nehru to involve Shiekh Abdullah in the process. Sheikh Abdullah was in jail at that time as he had started a Quit Kashmir movement in 1946. The Maharaja was upset, especially after Sheikh Abdullah hung the ruler's pictures round the neck of dogs and took out a procession in the valley. Much later, after his release and Kashmir's accession to India, Sheikh Abdullah wrote a letter to the Maharaja saying he was never against him personally and launched the movement for ushering in democracy in the Valley.

Pandit Nehru of course had a soft corner for Sheikh Abdullah although even he had to jail him later. Nehru possibly nursed a grudge against the Maharaja who did not allow him to enter the state in 1946 when the Quit Kashmir movement was boiling. While it is widely believed that the Maharaja put him under arrest at Kohila bridge near Uri, the gateway to the valley, I would like to put on record that actually Nehru was never arrested. He was merely stopped from going to the Valley and politely told to stay in the official guest house of the Maharaja near the bridge.

The Maharaja sent his personal cook and servants to take care of Pandit Nehru. After a few days, Maulana Azad, the then President of the Indian National Congress came seeking Pandit Nehru's release, which surprised the Maharaja. I remember the Maharaja exclaim, " But he was never arrested. He is free to go." But Pandit Nehru was furious at not being allowed to enter the Valley and that began an unfortunate personality clash between the two well-meaning personalities.

It is right to say that the unexpected tribal attack prompted the Maharaja to sign the Instrument of Accession with India and hastened the process. He felt Jinnah had ditched him. It also strengthened his belief that future of Jammu and Kashmir was secure with India and not with Pakistan. Moreover, Pakistan already had cut off all supplies of essential items like oil, vegetables and pulses, to India.

The Maharaja in fact had a prenomination about the attack by tribals, which began on the night of Oct 21. On that day, the King was scheduled to visit Bhimber Tehsil in Mirpur (now in Pakistan) and left for the destination from Amar Palace in Jammu in the morning. However, when he reached Jewel Chowk, a few kms from the palace, he suddenly asked us to go to Kathua instead. Later, he flew to Srinagar in the late afternoon. That same night tribals attacked and we learnt later that a group of tribals were waiting to ambush him in a forest on way to Poonch.

The King flew to Srinagar and when we reached there by road the next morning, everyone knew about the tribal invasion. Much to my surprise, I saw the King in battle fatigue. He wanted to go to the front. He asked us to get ready for battle and save the motherland. It took a lot of persuasion by me, Brigadier Rajendra Singh and others to make him change his mind. Brigadier Rajendra Singh, who was the Chief of his Army, assured him that he would be leading his troops to the front.

I was present there. I remember an agitated Mahaharajs saying, "What would they do to me, kill me, let them." But Brig Rajendra Singh told him he would not be killed. "They would treat you well, force you to sign on papers and show the world that the Maharaja has acceded to Pakistan," the Brigadier told him.

When the tribals were close to Srinagar on Oct 25, the King had to leave. Again it was done after much persuasion. He left on oct 25 night at 2 am with me in the car. He was quiet on the way. But the moment we reached Jammu in the morning, he took a step out of the car, turned his head towards Kashmir and said with melancholy, " we have lost Kashmir."

Later that day, he signed the accession. The papers were signed in the Maharaja's room in the Amar Palace. The Instrument of Accession was signed in Hari Niwas, Jammu.

Contrary to propaganda abroad that India forcibly got the documents after the tribal invasion, the instrument was actually signed before Indian troops landed in Kashmir. In fact, the Maharaja had laid down a clause (and this is well-known) that if Indian troops did not land, the agreement would become null and void.

The Maharaja actually laid down the condition that if the Indian Army and the Air Force did not reach the Valley the next day, the accession would stand cancelled.

Later that night, he told me, " If you don't see or hear Indian planes in the morning, shoot me in my sleep."

 

[ajtr]

Is JeM back in the Valley?​

The turbulence in Jammu and Kashmir can be seen as a multi-scale disorder. After a prolonged period of unrest, a semblance of calm has prevailed in the last few weeks as the vicious cycle of civilian deaths has come to a halt. A fresh wave of encounters between security forces and militants has disturbed the surface calm. The fear of militancy raising its ugly head again was deepened by a day-long encounter on the outskirts of Srinagar. More worrisome is the fact that the three dead foreign militants belonged to the dreaded Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). Police maintain that the three were highly motivated and trained; the army had to seek the help of helicopters to neutralise them. (The army spokesperson has denied the involvement of helicopters in the operation) Police sources say JeM operational chief Sajjad Afghani's intercepts indicate that the dead militants belonged to his outfit, and were part of six fidayeen militants who were assigned the job of carrying out attacks on Badami Bagh cantonment and Haft Chinar Army camp in Srinagar. If true, the failed fidayeen attack was an attempt made by militants in Srinagar after a gap of nine months (a suicide attack was carried out on January 6 by militants at Lal Chowk).
Kashmir was plagued by militancy since 1990; there is nothing unique in this encounter. Army chief General V K Singh had already indicated that the anti-India terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan has been intact. He also disclosed that the level of infiltration had gone up, 10 incidents recorded in June, six in July and 33 in August. Pakistan as a policy tries to maintain a certain level of militant infrastructure. With the onset of winter and closure of passes due to heavy snowfall, a spate of infiltrations may be part of an effort to augment the dwindling number of militants and to also replenish supplies. Moreover, the Syed Ali Shah Geelani faction of All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) has termed the encounter a 'doubtful operation'. The hard-line separatists believe that intelligence agencies in a bid to colour the popular uprising as a terrorist movement are trying to fabricate militant violence just before US President Barack Obama's visit to India.
Indeed a single high-profile incident doesn't indicate the beginning of a new trend. Conspiracy theories aside, it is a matter of anxiety that violence in the Valley has steadily increased. Since September approximately 40 militants have been killed by security forces. JeM had almost vanished from Kashmir. JeM's relationship with the ISI was strained after it carried out terrorist attacks inside Pakistan. It's also part of the umbrella group Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which has waged war against the Pakistan army. If the reports are to be believed that JeM is back in business in Kashmir, it raises many important questions. Has Pakistan decided to intensify militancy in Kashmir and has it revived its relationship with JeM? Or do the TTP and the JeM want to fish in Kashmir's troubled waters?
Pakistan was under tremendous international pressure after the 26/11 terrorist attack and its ability to abet militancy in Kashmir was curtailed. For this reason, over the past two decades 2009 was the most peaceful year in J&K. So far the year 2010 has been characterised by civil unrest and militants were deliberately lying low. If Pakistan has suddenly decided to increase the level of violence, what are the reasons? And what makes it despite surmounting internal troubles indulge in a dangerous game of brinkmanship?
There are four possible reasons for the changed strategy. The first being that the American campaign in Afghanistan is in a mess and the world's sole superpower has become dependent on Pakistan for an honourable exit. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Geelani has recently stated that peace was not possible in Afghanistan without the involvement of Pakistan. India seems to have failed in its efforts in limiting Pakistani influence in Afghanistan and after the London conference India looks to be out of the Afghan frame. Pakistan's perception of a 'strategic depth' in Afghanistan has traditionally proved detrimental to Indian interests. The emerging situation in Afghanistan is an important factor if Pakistan has decided to up the ante in Kashmir.
The second reason is that China unexpectedly has become active vis-à-vis Kashmir; visa on a separate sheet for residents of J&K and denying a visa to the C-in-C of Northern Command were clear indications that China regards J&K a 'disputed territory'. China has always considered Gilgit and Baltistan its backyard; its military presence in these areas goes back to the time it undertook the construction of the Karakarom highway linking China with Pakistan. Against this backdrop, reports of China investing $20 billion in next few years on projects like the widening of the Karakarom highway, railway and gas-lines up to the Chinese-built sea and warm-water port situated at Gwadar in Balochistan is hardly a surprise. Up till now China had a hands-off policy on the Kashmir conflict; Chinese diplomats used to shun any contact with Kashmiri separatists.
Reports emanating from Pak-administered Kashmir suggest that Chinese companies are building power projects in contravention of its old policy of not offending Indian sensibilities. What is more surprising is that Chinese diplomats based in Pakistan now openly attend seminars on Kashmir and are keen to develop ties with Kashmiri separatists based in Pakistan. Does this indicate a shift in the tectonic plates and the beginning of a new cold war in the region, where a Kashmir on the boil suits both Pakistani and Chinese interests?
The third reason is that the renewed civilian unrest in Kashmir in conjunction with the developments mentioned may have given Pakistan added confidence that Kashmir is a ripened fruit to be plucked soon.
If the three mentioned scenarios are correct, it is logical for Pakistan to buy peace with jihadi elements within and export them to Kashmir. With its killing of two birds with one stone, India is tied down in Kashmir and is also made to deal with Pakistan's troublesome jihadis. Such a scenario makes JeM's re-entry into Kashmir plausible.
A more dangerous scenario is al-Qaeda trying to gain a foothold in Kashmir. Ayman al-Zawahiri in a recent message threatened: "I wish to stress here the vital fact that the jihad to liberate Kashmir should first be liberated from the ISI because corrupt governments spoil jihads". Is JeM's appearance part of an effort to free Kashmir militancy from the clutches of ISI? Or is JeM a smokescreen that provides the ISI deniability of involvement in Kashmir? The knife on a watermelon or a watermelon on the knife, it's all the same. Kashmir will continue to suffer.

 

[Patriot]

Publicly expose Pak on anti-India activities: think-tank to US

US should "publicly expose" Pakistan whenever it fails to prevent infiltration across the LoC with India, shut down jihadi training operations and hold the ISI and Pakistani military to pledge that "they will not abet violent actors" in Kashmir, a US think-tank has said.

Releasing a report on Indo-US relations ahead of President Barack Obama's visit, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said Kashmir issue is a challenge that the US can neither avoid nor resolve as New Delhi has the power to "rebuff" and unwelcome US involvement.

"Washington can do more than it typically has to hold the Pakistani military and the ISI to pledges that they will not abet violent actors in Kashmir," the report 'Toward Realistic US-India Relations' said.

"At a minimum, the United States should expose Pakistan publicly whenever it fails to act to prevent infiltrations across the Line of Control, shut down jihadi training operations, or arrest leaders of organizations that foment attacks on India," the report authored by George Perkovich said.

At the same time, the report said, Indian leaders must also do "more to correct the mis-governance and human rights abuses that are remobilising Muslims in the Kashmir Valley."

"Indians may reasonably expect the US to heed to their demand not to try to mediate the Kashmir issue with Pakistan, but they should not expect it to stay silent about large-scale Indian human rights violations or other policies that undermine conflict resolution there," the report said.

US has legitimate strategic interests in urging both India and Pakistan to explore all prospects for normalising Indo-Pak relations and reducing the threat of violent extremism in South Asia and elsewhere, the report said.

It said Pakistani elites are adapting to the reality that their country cannot wrest the Valley away from India and that it must negotiate a formula to recognise the territorial status quo and improve the quality of life of Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control.

Many Pakistanis recognise further that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is the leader best suited to find and deliver a package that Indians, Kashmiris, and Pakistanis could live with, the report said.

"But if Pakistanis perceive that resolving the Kashmir issue will merely make the environment safer for India to bolster its conventional military advantage over Pakistan, they will balk," the report said.

"This is another reason that the United States and India must take great care to manage their defense cooperation in ways that reassure Pakistan that India's aims and capabilities are defensive, not offensive. Conventional military dialogue and confidence-building measures deserve greater attention for this purpose," it said.

The report said one reason why Pakistanis are turning their attention away from Kashmir is that many see Afghanistan as the hotter front for Indo-Pak competition.

"Pakistanis, especially the military, perceive an Indian effort to extend influence throughout Afghanistan at Pakistan's expense. Pakistan has fought this influence in many ways, including attacks on the Indian embassy and other targets in Afghanistan," the report said.

Observing that the US is caught in the middle, the report said Pakistan demands that Washington use its influence on its "new best friend" India not to use Afghanistan as the western side of a vise to squeeze Pakistan.

"India demands that the United States fight the Pakistani-backed Taliban more robustly and eschew temptations to negotiate with the Taliban. India is particularly emphatic about Pakistan's not being granted a seat in any possible negotiations," it said.

"Pakistan is willing to fight until the last Taliban or coalition foot soldier falls in order to pursue its interests in Afghanistan, while India is willing to fight to the last American to keep Pakistan from exerting indirect control over a future Afghan government," the report said.




http://www.indianexpress.com/news/publicly-expose-pak-on-antiindia-activities-thinktank-to-us/702653/

 

[Daredevil]

Lashkar behind Sikh massacre in Kashmir in 2000, says Headley

Pakistani-American Lashkar operative David Coleman Headley has reportedly told US and Indian investigators that the March 2000 Chittisinghpora village massacre, which took place three days before then US President Bill Clinton's visit to India, had been carried out by the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba (LeT).

India's security establishment had always blamed the LeT and the Hizbul Mujahideen for the massacre in Anantnag district of south Kashmir.

But many others — including the US administration — doubted the claim. President Clinton condemned the massacre, but was cautious to blame "unknown groups". Years later, writing the introduction to his then secretary of state Madeleine Albright's subsequent book Madam Secretary: A Memoir, he is said to have blamed 'Hindu militants' for the attack. The reference was however, edited out by the publishers.

Strobe Talbott, then deputy secretary of state, later confirmed Clinton was never convinced the Lashkar was behind the violence.

A number of facts about the killings led to these doubts. Most important was the fact that most of those killed were Sikhs. Sikhs had never before been targeted by Kashmiri militants.

An army encounter five days later in Pathribal village, which was later found to have been staged, indicated there was more behind the Chhittisinghpur killings than met the eye.

Before the visit of President Barack Obama to India — he is expected on November 6 — the National Investigation Agency has revealed Headley had said an LeT operative called Muzzammil — aide of Lashkar's chief military commander Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi — had spoken to him of his involvement in the Chittisinghpora massacre.

"I recollect that once Muzzammil had told me how he had gone and killed civilians in a village in south Kashmir before the visit of the then US President Bill Clinton to India. After coming to Muzaffarabad, he was initially given the charge of operations," Headley told NIA sleuths in the presence of FBI agents.

Headley also credited Muzzammil, 34, with planning and conducting the Akshardham Temple attack in Gujarat, according to his 109-page interrogation report apart from helping with the 26/11 attacks.

The confirmation of the Lashkar role is significant in the backdrop of noises from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Syed Salahuddin, who heads the United Jihad Council — the amalgam of militant outfits active in Kashmir — has "cautioned" that Indian security agencies could carry out another massacre such as the one in Chattisinghpora and blame it on terrorists.

Indian agencies maintain Salahuddin's statement could be an effort to draw suspicion away from the jehadis, who may well be planning a major attack.

 

[S.A.T.A]

@ Energon

You will be surprised to find how subjective 'Truth' is and depending on how it is packaged, labeled and delivered,we presume to know it.there is no absolute truth there is only received truth,hence i would request you to refrain from pushing down our throat your 'bitter truth' which has been clearly manipulated and which seems to reflect at one level the continuation of a certain strain,about brutal and colonial occupation and what not, that was recently heard at JNU from Roy & co.So being tied down to our prejudiced truth let us agree to disagree on this matter and move forward.

A federal democracy is not just political construct,but also a legal charter and we must be very clear in how wish to establish it as a political principle,Artcle 370 is concern to me not just because its a redundant constitutional dead weight,but it poses a serious challenge to the gradual evolution of our country as a federal democracy within the paradigms of a synchronized constitutional framework.this has long term implication to all facets of governance in India and i refuse to be tie myself down into seeing it as isolated political principle that must e seen within the context of Jammu & Kashmir.

Let me reiterate the act that the necessitating environment which called for force deployment in Kashmir has not disappeared and hence any reduction in force level should not be left to arbitrary principles and the decision must be left to the security force to contemplate in their infinite wisdom.We denied separatists breathing space, territorial and political,in Punjab and the same holds true in the Kashmir valley

P.S:If you continue to describe indian security forces as an 'occupation force',i fail to see any purpose or reason why we must engaged each other in this exercise, i'm afraid we are poles apart in our assessment of the ground realities.

 

[SHASH2K2]

J&K interlocutors hint at accommodating 'Azaadi' debate

SRINAGAR: The interlocutors appointed for J&K have suggested introducing amendments in the Constitution to accommodate the discussion on the " Azaadi option" for Kashmir.

"Indian constitution is a beautiful document and there is room for modification with changing times and we can even recommend for the amendments in the Constitution to accommodate the discussions on the Kashmir issue and to find the solution to the problem in line with the aspirations of the Kashmiris," Radha Kumar, one of the three interlocutors told reporters here at the end of a four-day visit to the Valley on Wednesday.

Saying it is my personal belief, Radha Kumar said, the Constitution has been amended more than 400 times and there is no harm if it is modified further to make it more accommodative.

Importantly, the Indian Constitution and the J&K constitution refer to the region as an integral part of India.

The head of the three-member panel, Dileep Padgoankar while interacting with mediapersons also wished to take leaders of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on board to find the permanent solution to the Kashmir issue.

"Yes we would like to visit PoK to talk to the leadership there to get their point of view on the issue .But there are parts in J&K which do not share the same view as the people in Kashmir valley," Dileep added.

The panel: Dileep Padgoankar, M M Ansari and Radha Kumar, which would undertake visit to the state every month , at the end of present visit , is expected to recommend several measures to be taken by the centre to bring in more credibility to the appointment of interlocutors to diminish the trust deficit of the people in Kashmir.

"We can even recommend the amendments in the Public Safety Act besides ask for release of political prisoners and even ask the centre to allow the peaceful protests in the valley in line with democratic temperament of the country," Dileep Padgoankar said.

Dileep even questioned the logic for imposing section 144 CrPC against holding peaceful protests in the valley. "There is no need of imposing section 144 to quell the assembly of the people for peaceful demonstrations," he added.


Read more: J&K interlocutors hint at accommodating 'Azaadi' debate - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-debate/articleshow/6821695.cms#ixzz13Yph2MB8

 

[S.A.T.A]

The interlocutors appointed for J&K have suggested introducing amendments in the Constitution to accommodate the discussion on the " Azaadi option" for Kashmir.

I'll be repeating myself if say why this whole 'Kashmir package' thing is another form of mollycoddling separatists ,something the congress is always eager to indulge in when its out of workable ideas(which is more often than not.Here we have wise interlocutors with representative credentials or credibility offering accommodations they are not mandated to offer,fervently hoping that they might some time of peace in the valley until Obama has had his rendezvous with Singh.Geelani & co might be terrorists, but there is no reason to believe that they think out of their kidneys.UPA's Diwali 'package' has no takers and is self defeating in the end.

 

[ajtr]

Is Radha voicing govt line on azadi, asks BJP​

NEW DELHI: Opposition BJP on Thursday asked the Centre whether Kashmir interlocutor Radha Kumar was voicing the government's opinion when she suggested amending the Constitution to accommodate the views of "azadi" aspirants.

The BJP's reaction came even as government officials tried to downplay the whole issue saying the statement should be read in "broader perspective" specifically when the interlocutors have to first establish their credibility among the stakeholders.

"Azadi may mean something differently for the central government interlocutors but the separatists look at it only as a cessation of ties with the Indian Union. No mainstream, nationalist political party will ever accept the suggestion of incorporating azadi in the Indian Constitution. The journey of speacial status has evolved into a demand fpr separatism," BJP spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman said, adding that "it is totally unacceptable to the party that, even before seriously initiating the task assigned to them, the interlocutors have started suggesting possible amendments to the Indian Constituion."

With the interlocutors "enlarging their own mandate almost on a daily basis", the party asked whether it would not be better to have quieter interlocutors.

Referring to Radha Kumar's "azadi" remarks, a senior official said: "Azadi' means different things to different people. There is no harm in talking about `azadi' if it means freedom from overbearing presence of security forces in civilian areas."

He said let them (interlocutors) test the ground and prepare the stakeholders for talks. Even if someone talks about Pakistan's involvement, it should be seen in the larger historical context as far as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and matters relating to that part of the Valley -- like trade, movement of people and other issues -- are concerned, he added.

Kumar had on Wednesday said, "The Indian Constitution is a beautiful document and there is room for modifications in it with changing times and we can even recommend for the amendments in the Constitution to accommodate the discussions on the Kashmir issue to find a solution to the problem in line with the aspirations of the Kashmiris."

Saying that "it is my personal belief", Radha Kumar had said, "The Indian Constitution has been amended many times and there is no harm if it is modified further to make it more

Read more: Is Radha voicing govt line on azadi, asks BJP - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...sks-BJP/articleshow/6831255.cms#ixzz13jghz0Oz

 

[ajtr]

Whose line is it anyway: J&K interlocutors leave Cong worried​

There is unease in the Congress over the manner in which interlocutors for Kashmir have gone about their job, issuing public statements that have run into controversy. The ruling party is of the view that the three interlocutors should focus on "interlocuting" with people rather than make remarks that would "affect their own credibility".
"Their role is to listen to people and try to find some solution. You cannot start solving the problem on the spot. Whatever they have to say, they can do in their recommendations to the government. I am sure the Prime Minister's Office will intervene to stop this penchant for loud thinking by the interlocutors, which can create complications for them in carrying out their own task ," a senior Congress functionary involved in Kashmir affairs told The Indian Express on Thursday.

The result, a Congress MP said, could be that when they come out with anything substantive, even that would be prone to misinterpretation.

Remarks made by the interlocutors have invited criticism from many quarters, including the BJP. The latest was the statement in Srinagar by Radha Kumar on Wednesday, in which she said that if needed, a solution could be explored beyond the Constitution. Dileep Padgaonkar, who heads the team of interlocutors, had earlier drawn flak from the Opposition for terming Kashmir a dispute, and saying a comprehensive solution could not come without involving Pakistan.

The BJP again attacked the interlocutors on Thursday, saying the team had turned the government's "quiet dialogue" strategy into "sound byte unilateralism" and asking the government to stop them. "They should interlocute with people with whom they are supposed to interlocute. What does Padgaonkar mean when he talks about visiting Pakistan Occupied Kashmir? Who would he talk to there? Will he ask Pakistan to allow him to go to PoK? We fail to understand the intent of their remarks," said another Congress leader.

While the Congress supports the team meeting different sections of people, including separatists, as it is their mandate to talk to people who are not in the political mainstream, it is the "unnecessary public statements" that are causing the consternation.

On Thursday, the Congress distanced itself from the remarks made by interlocutors. "The team consists of eminent people and they would be the best people to propound upon their formulations," AICC spokesperson Manish Tewari said. Enjoying the Congress's discomfiture, the BJP asked the government on Thursday whether it had any long-term roadmap for J-K.

 

[ajtr]

Misquoted, cries disoriented Radha​

October 29, 2010 2:26:23 PM

Mohit Kandhari | Jammu

A day after triggering controversy over her reported remarks that the Indian Constitution could be amended to accommodate a solution to the Kashmir crisis, Central interlocutor Radha Kumar on Thursday denied the statement as a "fabrication", and said she had only praised the Constitution's flexibility.

"As a matter of fact, that was a fabrication", she claimed while seeking to dispel the impression that she had at any time suggested the amendment to accommodate the demands of a section of the people in Jammu and Kashmir.

Her remarks came on the heels of a similar controversial statement by Dileep Padgaonkar, who is leading the three-member team of Kashmir interlocutors that the Kashmir issue needed to be resolved through discussions with Pakistan. He had faced criticism, as Radha Kumar does now, for "exceeding" the brief the Centre would have given them.

"What I did say was that the Indian Constitution is a very beautiful Constitution which I am extremely fond of. It has demonstrated its flexibility time and again and if there is some agreement by all parties on some new solution, I am sure Indian Parliament would be happy to consider it", Radha Kumar said.

Pointing out that she never considered herself to be in the exalted position to recommend changes to the Constitution, Radha Kumar stated, "I am not arrogant enough to believe that I am going to make recommendations on a document that took five years to prepare. You know the history of our Constitution.

Five years of debate all over this country and if you read those constitutional debates, I just tell you as an Indian you will be so proud".

Less than twenty-four hours ago, she had reportedly told the media that the "Indian Constitution is a beautiful document. It has been amended 100 times to accommodate even language issues. There is room for amendments. We can recommend amendments to accommodate discussions on Kashmir issue to find the solution in line with the aspirations of the Kashmiris".

The controversy coincided with the team winding up the second leg of its visit to the State before returning to New Delhi. Before that, though, mainstream political parties including BJP and Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party, and prominent groups like Panun Kashmir, Bar Association and various trade organisations boycotted the team in protest against the members' recent statements.

Those who called on the panel members in Jammu were isolated individuals and marginalised social and political groups with no significant support base. Only the representatives of the Congress and one known trader body met the interlocutors and demanded an "equal share" for Jammu and Ladakh regions at par with the Kashmir region in any final settlement.

Sensing the people's mood, Padgaonkar exercised extreme caution while sharing his thoughts at the end of the five-day-long visit.

He said, "Any kind of solution to the problems that face J&K must be acceptable to all regions of the State, must be acceptable to all sections of people in J&K and it should have complete endorsement of Indian public opinion as it is expressed in Parliament of India".

He added, "We are at the beginning of a journey which is going to be a long one, an arduous one and we are prepared for it".

Earlier in the day, both the interlocutors visited the migrant camp on the outskirts of Jammu and interacted with Kashmiri migrants living in virtual exile in their own country for over 20 years.

The team said it would submit its report to the Centre and seek time with members of the all-party parliamentary delegation that had been to the State to get their impressions on the contentious issue.

 

[ajtr]

Blunderbuss busybodies​

October 29, 2010 2:45:31 PM

The Pioneer Edit Desk

'Interlocutors' must keep their mouths shut

The three-member panel of 'interlocutors' appointed by the Union Government to interact with people representing various sections of opinion in Jammu & Kashmir — and not the Kashmir Valley alone, a point which cannot be overstressed — to gather their views on region and State specific grievances appears to be more interested in creating news than in undertaking a sensitive mission while maintaining a low profile. Nothing else explains why the 'interlocutors' should go out of the way to speak to mediapersons and make controversial statements. Just as Mr Dileep Padgaonkar had no business to talk about Pakistan having a role in settling issues in the Kashmir Valley, a comment which has understandably upset people across the country, his colleague Ms Radha Kumar should have known better than to baldly state that the interlocutors could recommend amendments to the Constitution to accommodate a 'solution' in keeping with the 'aspirations' of the people. This could be interpreted to mean, as it has been, that the Constitution can be amended to facilitate azadi or secession — for that alone would meet the aspirations of those Muslims of the Kashmir Valley who subscribe to separatism. Ms Radha Kumar now claims that she has been misquoted by the media; she never meant to suggest that the Constitution can be amended to accommodate azadi. It is possible that her words have been taken out of context; it is equally possible that the message she wanted to convey — that a solution has to be found within the Constitution of India — was lost in translation. Nor should we rule out the possibility that she indeed said what has been attributed to her and, realising that she had transgressed her brief, is now trying to wriggle out of a sticky situation.

The mounting concern over the interlocutors' penchant for speaking their mind freely and posing as spokespersons of the Union Government is, therefore, not without reason. The consequences of what they say have to be faced by the Government as the interlocutors are not accountable to the people of Jammu & Kashmir, leave alone the people of India. Worse, the interlocutors may find themselves shunned by the people of Jammu and Ladakh regions where such ill-conceived utterances are bound to raise hackles. That would render the attempt to gather all sections of opinion infructuous and yet another initiative by the Union Government to address the real and imaginary grievances of the people of Jammu & Kashmir would come to naught. Surely that's not what the Government wants. Before further damage is caused by busybodies overwhelmed by their sense of self-importance, the Government should rein them in: The interlocutors should be instructed not to speak to the media or plant stories. Anything less than this would be unacceptable. The Government should also make public the remit of the interlocutors. The people of India have the right to know what the three worthies have been asked to accomplish. If there are no red lines, as the interlocutors insist, then they should be drawn without any further delay. We don't need to further complicate issues in a strife-torn State.

 

[ajtr]

Sinister designs​

October 29, 2010 2:49:23 PM

Anuradha Dutt

b>Secessionists and their ilk must be stopped before it's too late

In recent days, a sinister charade on Jammu & Kashmir is being acted out by a motley bunch of players. There is the Chief Minister, who resorts to ambiguities on the issue of the State's allegiance to India whenever he finds himself cornered over his failure to quell militancy. There is a group of secessionist leaders, who keep stoking violence even while they pay periodic visits to the capital, where they sup with politicos, media supporters and policy analysts. There is a simpering prima donna, whose ubiquitous presence — sometimes among disgruntled tribals near the Narmada river; sometimes among Maoists; sometimes among Kashmiri separatists — suggests a consummate actor, which she indeed was until a few years ago, when she quit cinema for an ostensibly higher calling. And there is the panel of 'interlocutors' appointed on October 13 by the Union Government, to interact with Kashmiri groups for no clearly identifiable reason.

It seems to have become a free for all, with individuals, who have no link with Kashmir politics or even Islamist terrorism, suddenly vaulting into centre-stage to vent their views for whatever they are worth. By allowing so much interference in a strategically sensitive issue by unrelated elements, the Congress-led UPA ruling alliance has betrayed its own ineptness. Its nationalist credentials, often in dispute in the past because of its poor handling of the Kashmir issue, Naxal militancy and Islamist terror, is again suspect in the wake of its dispatching three 'interlocutors' to Kashmir, and silence on the seditious comments of separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani and India-baiter Arundhati Roy. Since the UPA is seen by critics as taking its cue on Kashmir from US foreign policy strategists, its latest move, approving the role of interlocutors, has drawn tremendous flak from the BJP. The party has slammed the reference made by senior journalist Dileep Padgaonkar, one of the three busy-bodies, to Pakistan's involvement in any attempt to work out a 'permanent solution'.

The other two interlocutors are Information Commissioner MM Ansari and Prof Radha Kumar, a specialist in peace and conflict resolution studies though unheard of, for all purposes. Judging by the uproar set off by their initial foray into Kashmir, their ability to help defuse the crisis is highly doubtful. BJP spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman has not only trashed the "Pakistani dimension", invoked by Mr Padgaonkar, but asked at a press conference whether it was part of their brief or had he stepped beyond his brief. The three were appointed by the Union Government to talk to Kashmiri groups. But the apparent advocacy of Pakistan's concerns seems to have stirred up a hornet's nest. Any attempt by the UPA earlier to deviate from our traditional line on Kashmir that it is an integral part of India, and its status cannot be negotiated or diluted has been blocked by political adversaries.

The meddling by interlocutors for the first time in the course of the long and tedious confabulations over Kashmir has been dismissed by the BJP spokesperson as "unnecessarily internationalizing the process". Significantly, former Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor, shortly before he was forced to give up his job, had been castigated by his critics for proposing that an interlocutor be involved for resolving the Kashmir issue. The Saudis, he suggested, could perform that role, an idea that roused hard-core patriots to fury. The term interlocutor, he had tried to explain, was commonly used in international diplomacy. By requisitioning the services of interlocutors in a State, over which India's claim has officially never been in doubt till now, we have actually left the door ajar so that the devil can slip his foot in.

As for their India-bashing at a seminar in New Delhi, police sources confirm that Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Arundhati Roy and their ilk can be tried for sedition under existing laws. The seminar in question was an attempt to bring Islamic secessionists and Maoists upon a common platform. This unlikely alliance of religious fundamentalists, fringe communists and supposed liberals is being seen as the coming together of elements, hostile to a sovereign and strong India. Investigating agencies need to track down their sources of funding as well as identify the commonalities among them. The Home Ministry's reluctance to book them for sedition may owe to the perception that a police case could be counter-productive by turning them into martyrs. Arundhati Roy, despite her resolve in the past to secede from India, continues to live and thrive here. It is possible that she harbours a secret desire to become another Joan of Arc. The Home Ministry would do well to thwart that desire but with a velvet hand.

 

[ajtr]

I'll be repeating myself if say why this whole 'Kashmir package' thing is another form of mollycoddling separatists ,something the congress is always eager to indulge in when its out of workable ideas(which is more often than not.Here we have wise interlocutors with representative credentials or credibility offering accommodations they are not mandated to offer,fervently hoping that they might some time of peace in the valley until Obama has had his rendezvous with Singh.Geelani & co might be terrorists, but there is no reason to believe that they think out of their kidneys.UPA's Diwali 'package' has no takers and is self defeating in the end.

I doubt congress has some sinister plan with respect to J&K which will end up in Gordian Knot and ultimately it will take forceful action when things goes out of hand.Remember punjab.....

 

[ajtr]

Ladakhi students demand CU at Ladakh, take out rally​

Excelsior Correspondent

JAMMU, Oct 29: Hundreds of Ladakhi students under the banner of All Ladakh Students Joint Action Committee took out rally while demanding Central University in Ladakh region, here today.

Hundreds of Ladakhi students today gathered at Ladakh Sarai and highlighted that Ladakh region was neglected in educational sectors by the Central and State Governments, here this morning.

While raising slogans against State and Central Governments, they in a shape of rally held mass protest, holding placards and wearing badges, raising their problems passed through different roads culminated their march at Bikram Chowk.

Addressing the gathering, Tsering Namgyal, said that with lack of proper education facilities in Ladakh, youths were compelled to become educational refugees and their future was losing its unique identity in the name of imbibing education outside Ladakh. This leads to cultural lag and unrest among the youths of Ladakh region, he added.

He said further that, "if the Central Government could sanction two Central Universities for Jammu and Kashmir regions, the Ladakh should not have been ignored and it would not be acceptable at any cost."

Dorjay Angchuk, another student leader said that people in Ladakh are too facing hardships like other regions and the interlocutors should not have ignored them as they are equally associated with the State.

Various other speakers also highlighted the other issues including educational infrastructure in degree colleges of Ladakh region, inclusion of Ladakhi language in 8th Schedule, opening of Chadhar Road, Zojila tunnel and said that Ladakhi has always abided by the Constitution of India.

They also alleged that only Kashmir gets due attention and share from the Central Government aid but both Jammu and Ladakh region have remained neglected always.

 

[ajtr]

Vision of India and Kashmir's place in that vision​

By Jagmohan

WHAT is our vision of India and what is Kashmir's place in that vision? This isJagmohan the fundamental question that every Indian, genuinely concerned about the future of the country, should be asking himself or herself, but which practically no one is asking. Therein lies the tragedy of India. The Republic that came into being on January 26, 1950, has shown little aptitude or willingness to define clearly, its true vision and its true destiny and to pledge itself to the realization of that vision and that destiny.

The great question that should have been faced by us was one our civilisational and cultural identity and its rejuvenation and regeneration so as to enable us to provide an inspirational and ideological base for building a strong and well-knit India with fundamental values and a design and life-style of its own. But we ignored this great question and acted like a blind man with a lantern in his hand, assuming that the outer light was a substitute for the inner one. No wonder, we now find ourselves in a snake-pit-a pit of frightening darkness and dimension, a pit that has exposed us to grave dangers not only in Kashmir but also in other parts of the country.

The fundamental challenge that confronts us today is how to extricate ourselves from this snake-pit and come out of the atmosphere of chaos and confusion and move into one of stability, and orderliness with lights of true vision and motivation of true destiny guiding us.

What, we must ask ourselves in all earnestness, is India?? Is it a mere collection of States. and territories or something more than that? Is it a new political reality only or also an expression of a common heritage and history, a common culture, a common set of values that have nursed and nurtured the same way of life for ages in diverse circumstances and in different regions.

The answer to these questions is clear. The new Republic is a new constitutional entity. But it is not merely that. It is also a historical and cultural continuity-a continuity that is unique, a continuity that mocks at the ravages of time and has remained unperturbed by the scars and stains left by the upheaval and uproars of history. And all parts of the country, including Kashmir, are a part of continuity.

Few in our country-practically none amongst the ruling elites who have dominated the political scene in the post-independence period, realize that Kashmir's relationship with the rest of India is based not merely on the Instrument of Accession and Articles 1 and 370 of the Constitution of India; it is rooted is far more potent and enduring forces whom neither the turbulence and tornadoes of the past nor the negativism and nihilism of the present-day politics can really destroy. It is a relationship of mind and soul that has existed from the time immemorial and found amble expression in common avenues of intellect and emotions, poetry, and literature, philosophy and outlook. Every green pasture that you walk around in Kashmir, every silvery peak that you watch from pleasurable distance, every stream that sings its song by your side, every enchanting lake that you come across now and then and every little town and city that visit, has some signpost or the other of this deep and abiding relationship. Kalhana was not off the mark when he observed in Rajatarangani that there was hardly any place in Kashmir that was not a tirtha. And Vincent Smith rightly pointed out that ancient India had nothing more worthy of its early civilization than the grand ruins of Kashmir.

To understand in depth Kashmir's relationship with the rest of India, it is necessary to address ourselves to a few basic questions.

What were the forces that brought into existence, about 4,000 years ago, a quiet little temple on what is now known as the Sankaracharya Hill? What made the great Kashmiri King Lalitaditya (721-761) to build the glorious temple in honour of Surya, the Sun God, at Martanda, and Avanti Verman (855-883) to construct equally splendid temples at Avantipura? What inner urges did these constructions symbolize? What philosophy, what temper of mind, did they represent? Were these inner urges, these tempers of mind, not products of the same cultural forces that prevailed in other pans of India?

How is it that for thousands of years, the learned Brahmins of South India have been, on getting up from bed, folded their hands, looked northward and prayed: Namaste; Saradadevi: Kashmira Mandala Vasini (I salute the Goddess of Sarada who resides in Kashmir). Why is it that even now parents tell their children to seek the blessings of this Goddess of Learning who has her abode in North Kashmir in the valley of Kishanganga?

What made Sankara, when he wanted to rejuvenate the spirit of India, to travel from a small hut of Kaladi in Kerala all the way to the distant hills in Kashmir? And what made him to stay there for quite some time and compose his famous poem, Soundarya Lahari, propounding his philosophy of Shakti and Shiva? Why is it that Abihava Gupta, the great savant of Kashmir Sahivism, is also called 'Sankaracharya of Kashmir', and how is it that he draws his philosophic thought from the same cultural spring as that of Sankara?

What were the forces that attracted Swami Vivekananda from Calcutta to Kanyakumari and then to Kashmir? What made him standing before the holy cave of Amarnath, experience one of the highest stages of spiritual ecstasy Why was he so captivated by the sight in the cave that for days, to use the words of Sister Nivedita, he could speak of nothing else but the image of Shiva and proclaim that he had never been so greatly inspired as then?

What do the various landmarks on the route from Pahalgam to the cave of Amarnath-Chandanwani,Pishu Ghati, Seshnag, Panchtarni- stand for? Are they not some of the most important symbols of Indian culture and, beliefs?

How is it that Kashmir had always an innate attraction for Indian saints and sages, poets and philosophers, and provided them with perennial, inspiration? What, in moments. of poetic intensity, made Kalidasa see the 'laughter of Shiva' in the Himalayas and Subramania Bharati think of Kashmir as the Crown of Mother India?

The answer to all these questions is one and only one: Kashmir, for thousands of years, has been a part of the Indian vision-a silent and serene, yet solid and strong part; an integral and inseparable part.

Even when Islam came to Kashmir, it did not alter the ethos of the common folk. Most of the Islamic teachings were just grafted on Vedantic beliefs and thoughts. The central message of Kashmir's patron saint and founder of the Rishi order, Sheikh Nooruddin Noorani was: There is one God, But with a hundred names. There is not a single blade of grass, which doe not worship Him.

Sheikh Nooruddin himself was deeply influenced by Lal Ded who "saw Shiva and Shakti sealed in one" and whose outlook was permeated with some of the finest components of Indian thought and tradition.

Both Sheikh Nooruddin and Lal Ded were endowed "with vision which increases the power of speech and with inspired speech that makes vision penetrating". It was their inspired speech and their penetrating vision coupled with earthy sense and rub of life, that kept the Kashmiri ethos within the over-all cultural mainstream of India even after a very large part of the Valley's population had been brought under the fold of Islam. The followers of the Rishi Order abhorred killings. Like the Jains, they were careful not to cause harm even to insects. Sheikh Nooruddin went to the extent of refusing to walk on grass lest it should be damaged. Poet Mohammad lqbal, who was a Kashmiri by descent, also noted in one of his Persian couplets, the habit of Kashmiri Muslims to carve out moortiseven from the stones of graves.

The list of the living symbols and signposts of Kashmir's relationship with the rest of India is long and virtually unending. But for our policy-makers,. whether they sit in North Block or South Block or Shastri Bhavan it does not exist. No mention of its is ever made either inside or outside the country. No child is taught a word about it. No pressman writes a line on the subject. All that is spoken of or written about, almost ad nauseam, is the special relationship, the need to continue and strengthen Article 370, and of giving more and more autonomy-'anything short of azadi'-promoting thereby separatist psyche and according to tacit approval to the 'two-nations' or 'three-nations' theory.

It is strange that Jawaharlal Nehru, who had a strong sense of history, spoke or wrote, after August 1947, very little about Kashmir's underlying bonds with the rest of India and hardly took them into consideration while framing his Kashmir policy instead, he showed a marked disposition to rely on personally-oriented relations and that too, with very few individuals like Sheikh Abdullah and Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed. Though himself a Kashmiri by descent, he took practically no step to fertilize the commonality of the mindscape and to bring home to all concerned Kashmir's inerasable place in the Indian vision. The partition of the country badly stabbed this vision. In extenuation of Nehru's and other Indian leaders' inability to prevent this partition, it could, perhaps, be said they had to reckon with British manipulations. But in free India not to reinvigorate centuries-old vision with its deep roots in culture, tradition and other gambits of life, was nothing short of committing a lapse of a vast historic proportion.

The Indian decision-makers went astray at every turning point of Kashmir's contemporary history as they had neither any clear idea about the true vision of India nor of Kashmir's place in that vision. They had no fundamental ideological or inspirational base from which a coherent consistent and constructive pattern of thoughts and deeds could emerge. Their approach was spurious, superficial and personally-oriented, giving no attention to the forces that shaped the mindscape. Consequently, they have brought Kashmir and the rest of India to the brink of spiritual and cultural divorce. They have created an atmosphere in which we have virtually "nothing to look backward with pride and nothing to look forward with hope".

There is only one way to salvage the position. And that lies in the emergence of new political, social and cultural forces that could discover the true vision of India and outline its true destiny and assign Kashmir its rightful place in that vision and that destiny.

 

[ejazr]

Posters in Srinagar ask Hurriyat to review its agitation

Posters appeared in the commercial hub of Lal Chowk and Residency Road in Srinagar city carrying a two-day ultimatum to hardline Hurriyat Conference to review its decision on continuing protest bandhs indefinitely. Hundreds of posters issued in the name of hitherto unknown Jammu and Kashmir Islami Ittehad outfit appeared on the walls and shutters of shops in the city.

"The Hurriyat Conference should announce by October 31 as to who is calling the shots in Kashmir. Who should we listen to -- Hurriyat or stone-pelters?" the outfit asked.

The poster is apparently in response to incidents of stone-pelting in some parts of the Valley even on the days when the Hurriyat led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani suspends strikes and protests.

It said if the Hurriyat failed to respond by tomorrow, the situation in Kashmir will take a new turn from November 1 and all the responsibility will fall on the separatists.

"The benefits derived out of strikes and protests over the past four months are unemployment, destruction and bleak future for Kashmiri nation," it said.

The outfit urged the Hurriyat to consider the economic condition of the people before giving calls for strikes.

It also claimed that only a handful of stone-pelters were creating law and order problem in the Valley for their petty and personal interests.

"There are only 100 to 125 stone pelters who wait for deterioration of situation so that they can indulge in loot. There has been an incident in Zakura where they snatched jewellery from a woman," the outfit said.

It said unscrupulous elements were using social networking sites like Facebook to spread "lies" and "rumours" about non-existent atrocities committed by security forces.

"A few days back, they spread rumours about rape of a woman in Palhalan, which turned out to be a lie later on. However, it caused disturbances at many places in the Valley," the outfit said.

Eyewitnesses told PTI that the posters were pasted in the city in the wee hours on Saturday but most of these disappeared within hours. Police officials said they were aware about the development but refused to comment on it.

 

[ajtr]

It also claimed that only a handful of stone-pelters were creating law and order problem in the Valley for their petty and personal interests.

"There are only 100 to 125 stone pelters who wait for deterioration of situation so that they can indulge in loot. There has been an incident in Zakura where they snatched jewellery from a woman," the outfit said.

It said unscrupulous elements were using social networking sites like Facebook to spread "lies" and "rumours" about non-existent atrocities committed by security forces.

"A few days back, they spread rumours about rape of a woman in Palhalan, which turned out to be a lie later on. However, it caused disturbances at many places in the Valley," the outfit said.

And this is the real truth about all those innocent rock throwing youths and their parents.

 

[ajtr]

Kashmir - Illusion and Reality​

By Jagmohan

Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it." This observation comes to my mind every time the Government brings a resolution for extension of the President's rule in Jammu and Kashmir. The last such resolution was brought to Parliament on August 9, 1994. The Home Minister's speech, introducing the resolution and the Governor's report, had practically the same contents as on the previous occasions. All these speeches and reports reflect the same state of mind - the mind which prefers to live with illusions rather than with reality.

During the period intervening between two extensions, the Government has always been claiming improvement in the situation and singing the same song about the political process and elections But what are the facts?

From the data collected by me from the replies to starred and unstarred questions during the just concluded session of Parliament, it emerged that the casualty figures had been going up. In 1990, 1,177 persons were killed; in 1991, 1,393; in 1992, 1,909; and from January 1, 1993 to June 30, 1994, 3,964. If the figures of abduction, kidnapping, attacks on security forces and other incidents related to terrorism are tabulated, the same trend would be visible.

During the last six months alone, 102 security personnel and 526 civilians were killed, 145 persons were kidnapped and the security forces were subjected to heavy firing and grenade attacks 1,275 times. In this period, Doda, too, came under the vicious grip of terrorism.

Encounter
As in last year, rockets were fired at this year's Independence Day function at Srinagar. On August 13, the militants, in the heart of the capital, engaged the security forces in a pitched encounter for practically the whole day. In this gun battle, the BSF lost a commanding officer and five jawans.

The murder of Dr Qazi Nissar on June 20 and the virtual refusal of the Government servants posted in the Valley to do any work connected witb the Amarnath Yatra (August 13-21) also show the way the wind is blowing. The bomb explosion in a Jammu bus on August 25, which resulted in the death of ten persons, including eight children, points to the same direction.

At the time of every extension, I have been raising a few basic questions. Why has terrorism been increasing both in scale and ferocity? Why are persons like Qazi Nissar still being murdered? Why do people respond to the calls for general setrikes by militant outfits? Why is not the Government tackling forces of subversion which are being continuously fuelled by the ISI to continue internal disorder and incipient aggression?

Loyalty
The answer to these and allied questions, which the Government has always side-tracked, is that the truth has never been and is still oot being, faced in Kashmir. The truth is that the loyalty of a large number of public servants has been subverted; the truth is that no one is trying to rebuild the collapsed structure of civil administration; the truth is that the initiative is being allowed to rest with the militants and the Government is persisting with its permissive attitude.

Take, for instance, the Hazratbal incident of October/November, 1993. In this case the Government first surrendered its option, at the time of cordon, by providing food to the militants; then it surrendered its laws by releasing 62 persons who had been waging a "war against the State", in conspiracy with a foreign power- and now it has surrendered its prestige by removing the 'bunkers' for the retention of which it had been insisting for the last ten months. Clearly, such a weak response would add to the belligerency of the militants and would have the same impact as was caused by the simultaneous release of 70 hard-core militants in September/December, 1989, by Dr Farooq Abdullah's Government.

The extent to which the Government has been trapped in its own confused web would be evident from the way it has been dealing with Yasin Malik who is a principal accused not only in the kidnapping (December 8, 1989) of Rubaiya Sayeed but also in the killing of four innocent Indian Air Force officers (January 24, 1994). Is it not in itself a tragedy of monumental proportion that the Indian State, whom Jawaharlal Nehru vowed to make "mighty in thoughts, mighty in deeds, mighty in culture, and mighty in service of humanity", is today looking to persons like Yasin Malik in resolving the Kashmir problem, instead of setting right its own mooring?

Is it not paradoxical that whereas 134 personnel of the security forces have been punished for "excesses", not even a single militant involved in serious crimes has been convicted, and the "designated court" set up by me in early 1990 at Jammu for speedy and effective prosecution, was made dysfunctional under political pressures of petty interests? Is it not a naivety of its own kind to talk of elections in the Valley, when practically every functionary of the State is afraid of raising his head above the parapet wall and when pro-Pakistan and pro-independence elements are being allowed to inject, through media and subversive literature heavy doses of militancy in the social environment of the Valley?

Too late
When on August 15, 1994, I heard the Prime Minister teUing Pakistan, from the ramparts of the Red Fort, "With you, without you, in spite of you, Kashmir is an integral part of India, and this will not change," I was reminded of the following words of General Douglas MacArthur: "The history of failure in war can be summed up in two words: Too late, too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy; too late in realising the mortal danger; too late in preparedness; too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance."

If Government had adopted a firm line in 1988-89, when the present game of subversion, terrorism and low-intensity war was started by Pakistan, it would not have been in the sorry mess in which it finds itself today and the people of Kashmir and the rest of India would not have paid such a heavy price both in human and financial terms. Even now it is doubtful whether the Prime Minister's words would be matched by deeds. The Government has been, and is still, sending conflicting signals. Even the three main functionaries - the Home Minister, the Minister of State for Home Affairs and the Governor, J&K - have been speaking with different voices.

Performance
What is needed is a clear, consistent and comprehensive policy which not only malces up for the deficiency of late response but also demonstrates that promises would be followed by performance. This policy should, as I have been emphasising since 1990, include putting sustained pressure on pro-Pakistani militants, concentrating on rebuilding the civil administration; dealing effectively with subversive elements within the services; eliminating indirect help to militants by way of civil works and "appeasement-recruitment", prosecuting the disinformers in specific cases; activising the 'designated court' at Jammu fur speedy trial of the accused involved in killing and kidnapping; taking initiative to unearth arms and ammunition; organising counter-guerrilla groups; keeping all the while an honourable line of retreat open for new leadership not involved in heinous crimes; and, finally bringing home to all concerned that, if fair gestures are not responded to, Article 370, which is being currently misused to cause internal subversion and facaitate external intervention, would be abrogated.

"While truth", says Emile Zola, "is buried underground, it grows, it chokes, it gathers such an explosive force that one day it bursts out, it blows everything up with it." Since the Government and Parliament have not been facing the truth in Kashmir it has been hitting them in the face after every six months. And, if the present attitude persists, it would continue to hit them in the coming months also. Every extension means not merely constitutional extension of the President's rule; it also means extension of India's wishful thinking.

 

[ajtr]

AUTONOMY: Nuts and bolts of operational reality​

By Jagmohan

Those who demand pre-1952/53 status or advocate maximum autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir take care not to address themselves to concrete questions. They remain conveniently vague and show little respect to the practical implications of their stand. For instance, they suppress the fact that, in the absence of full financial integration with the Union, Jammu and Kashmir would have no resource at all for development. It is the Union finances that provide the entire funds for the State's five-year Plans and also for a substantial part of the non-Plan expenditure. According to the Reserve Bank bulletin (December, 199S; Appendix I & II), per capita Central assistance for 1994-95 was Rs. 3,010 for J&K, as against Rs. 190 for Bihar, Rs. 305 for Rajasthan and Rs. 341 for UP. In case of J&K, 90 per cent of this assistance is in the shape of grants and 10 per cent as loans; while for the four States mentioned above, it is 30 per cent grants and 70 per cent loans. Likewise, per capita non-Plan grants for J&K in the same year comes to Rs. 720 while it is Rs. 72 for Bihar, Rs. 23 for Tamil Nadu, Rs. 81 for Rajasthan and Rs. 23 for UP. All this shows the tremendous gains that have flowed to the J&K State from the financial link with the Union. What will happen if this link is now ended? Who will fill in the gap? Will it not be the United States and the other Western powers? And will it not place Kashmir virtually in their hands?

Take, likewise, another example - extension of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution which enables the President of India to bring the State under his rule. It is often said that this extension constitutes an encroachment on the State's autonomy. But no one asks a connected question: If there is a breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the State or if the State refuses to comply with any direction concerning Defence, Foreign Affairs or Communications, what will happen in the absence of President's powers under Article 356? Suppose the Governor has the corresponding powers; then does it not mean that the President would have to submit to the decision of the Governor, his own appointee? Again, suppose the Governor is made Sadar-e-Riyasat, who is elected by the State Assembly, then, would not granting the final say to the Sadar-e-Riyasat amount to subordinating the Union to the State? And if the President withdraws his recognition of the Sadar-e-Riyasat but the State Assembly once again elects the same person as Sadar-e-Riyasat, will it not cause a constitutional deadlock?

If funds continue to flow to Kashmir from the Union, as at present, and it is allowed, as is being advocated in certain quarters, to have an exclusive say on subjects other than Defence, External Affairs and Communications, it could enact Islamic civil and criminal laws and even set up Shariat courts, on the same lines as has been done in Pakistan, and make it virtually a theocratic entity. Would not such a scenario do violence to the very preamble of our Constitution and also amount to secularism financing theocracy and that, too, propelled by forces of bigotry and fundamentalism?

The problem of Jammu and Kashmir has not been insufficiency but surfeit of powers. During 1977- 82, for example, Sheikh Abdullah established a sort of elective dictatorship in the State. He practically acted like a monarch of all that he surveyed. No one even checked him from doing what was, on the face of it, wrong. His recruitment of the erstwhile die- hard workers of the Plebiscite Front, the Al-Fatah and such other subversive organisations, in sensitive departments like police, was, obviously, fraught with grave risks to the security and stability of the State. And yet, he could go ahead unhindered either by the Governor of the State or by the Union Government. The Resettlement Act,1982, legislated during Sheikh Abdullah's regime and formally enacted during Dr. Farooq Abdullah's time, showed what a vast area of power was available to the State Government.

It is not in the erosion of autonomy but in the erosion of earnestness and sincerity that the seeds of numerous troubles of Kashmir are embedded. There are a great many instruments of power that are available to the State leaders but they have been used less in the service of the State than in the service of the self.

The crucial questions that need to be asked of the singers of the autonomy ode are: Do they want more autonomy to enact a legislation like the one referred to above? In what way is any welfare work or work of development held up for want of powers? Where is any law or executive order or judicial pronouncement that has undermined the personality or identity of Kashmir or altered its sculpture or spiritual landscape? What will happen in the absence of flow of Union funds? If such funds continue to flow, how will it be ensured that a secular entity does not feed and prop up a theocratic one? And how will the challenge of fundamentalist forces from within be met?

If one shakes off the impact of what is dished out to the Press and published in abundance, one would discover that the advocates of more autonomy or of pre-1952/53 position are misleading the people, planting untenable and unworkable notions on their minds and arousing false and dangerous hopes. They are, wittingly or unwittingly, strengthening those forces which have been working, both beneath and above the surface from 1948 onwards, for securing secession and establishing 'Sheikhdom' in Kashmir in one form or the other. For what is implied by 'more autonomy' today will meln 'independence' tomorrow. Such a development would have serious repercussions and ultimately lead to Balkanisation of India with all its bloody and tumultuous consequences.

It is, indeed, tragic that to serve their ends of power quite a few of our leaders are confusing the people, dividing them and indirectly facilitating the task of those who want to see a torn and tormented India, an India that is continuously at war with itself.

 

[ejazr]

Hurriyat likely to relax shutdown for Diwali

The hardline Hurriyat Conference is likely to amend its protest calendar, relaxing shutdown for a day on November 5 due to Diwali. The decision is under consideration after the Kashmiri Sikhs appealed to Hurriyat chairman Syed Ali Shah Geelani to review its protest calendar to "allow the community to celebrate Diwali".

"This (appeal of Sikhs) is under consideration," Hurriyat spokesman Ayaz Akbar told The Indian Express. "The decision would be taken on Sunday or a day after."

The decision to review the protest calendar has come after an appeal from the Sikhs living in Kashmir valley. The Sikhs on Saturday made an appeal to the Hurriyat chairman, asking him to review its protest calendar in view of Diwali.

Though the hardline Hurriyat Conference had called for intensification of the shutdown from November 5 because of US President Barack Obama's India visit, the amalgam led by Geelani is likely to accede to the request and relax shutdown for a day.