A. Report of Interlocutors on J&K by Union Govt. is not the outcome of the interactions with more than 700 delegations, three RTCs, mass meetings conducted by them while visiting all the 22 districts, but this is a report as Union Govt. and State Govt. required in the name of consensus of people and stake holders of state. This is addressed only to the separatist mindset of J&K which is in minority in the state by the confused, ignorant and compromising attitude of Bharat.
Basis of their thinking in last 64 years are misconceptions that they have proposed for themselves. These ill conceived propositions are-
1. Jammu-Kashmir is a unique state having unique Geography, unique History and unique problems. When problem is unique then solution should also be unique. Jammu-Kashmir state is not like all other states of Bharat.
2. Jammu-Kashmir is Kashmir. Kashmir voice is the real will of people of state that is exhibited by NC, PDP and Hurriyat
3. Due to Muslim majority J&K state, it should be given special treatment.
4. Accession was conditional, there were some pre-conditions.
5. Article 370 ensues J&K state some sort of Autonomy as well as special status. Article 370 gives state a dual character.
6. Article 370 is not procedural mechanism but basis of relationship between centre and Jammu & Kashmir. Delhi Accord should be the basis of final resolution.
7. Jammu & Kashmir is a dispute between Bharat and Pakistan.
8. Kashmir has its own identity that is Kashmiriyat.
9. Jammu – Kashmir people are not like people of rest of Bharat but have dual status.
10. Parliament and Union institutions should have limited application on J&K states and so also on confirmation to the wishes of Kashmir.
B. In their report Interlocutors are making fools of the nation:
1. According to them they does not recommend Pre-1953, but call for reviewal of all Union acts and laws extended to state after 1952 and further recommends that this reviewal should be on the basis proposed by them considering. Dual character of J&K state, Dual status of people of J&K and Delhi Accord, 1952, as basis of centre – state relationship.
They talks about 1994 resolution of Parliament on J&K but call POK as Pak administered Kashmir, accepts Hurriyat’s pre-condition for solution that Bharat – Pakistan – and both regions of J&K should be accepted as stake holders. They signified importance of J&K as a bridge between central Asia and South Asia. In their approach, Bharat is South Asia and Jammu-Kashmir is a bridge not gateway of Bharat to rest of the world or Mastak (head) of the Bharat Mata. The resolution revolves around much talked Manmohan – Musharaf Pact in Track II diplomacy of 2006, agreed for Joint control, shared sovereignity, demilitarization, porous irrelevant borders, maximum possible autonomy to both of the regions. Reports of working groups made by PM in 2006 also have recommendations on the above lines, these are again toed by interlocutors.
C. Interlocutors terms Article 370 a special status provided to J&K state in our constitution, but at same time recommends the word ‘Temporary’ mentioned in title of Article 370 to be deleted and further replaced by word ‘Special.’ They recommend Article 370 to be made permanent and also call that no further Parliament laws, amendments should be extended to J&K state other than internal security or security and vital economic issues.
D. They accepts sense of deprivation, discrimination in Jammu and Ladakh, but does not call for ‘Delimitation of Assembly and Parliament seats’ to end manipulated domination of Kashmir in state’s politics. They even does not accepts people of Jammu, Ladakh, different groups of refugees as stake holder in final resolution.
There is no discussion about registration of POK people, their representation in Parliament and demand of filling 24 vacant legislative seats kept for people of POK by 10 Lakh refugees presently in Jammu. Even there is not a single word on fate of most unfortunate 4 lakh peoples of west Pak, refugees since 1947.
E. They claim, the report is to address ‘sensitive issue of deep rooted feeling of victimhood prevailing in Kashmir valley’ but does not explain who are responsible for spreading of misinformation, creating mistrust between rest of Bharat and Kashmir valley, misgovernance in valley, communalizing the society of Kashmir, spreading of terrorism, permitting false sense of victimhood to be used by ISI and Pakistan against Bharat, forced migration and persecution of Kashmir Hindus and Sikhs and refugees of 1947 and marginalizing of nationalist forces in valley.
F. In whole of the report not a single word of praise for security forces, accepting the role of Army, criticizing intentions of Pakistan, but they call AFSPA ‘Controversial,’ Reviewal of Disturbed Area Act, Amendment of PSA as these laws are the cause of miseries of most privileged people of Bharat those are valley people.
G. They tried to dilute authority of Bharat over state by giving recommendations:
1. State Govt. should send three names with opposition’s advice to President, who would accept one of them for the post of Governor.
2. Union quota in administrative service in state is presently 50% instead of 66% in other states. They give advice for further gradual reduction in favour of state cadre.
3. They even recommended the use of equal denomination in Urdu for words Governor and Chief Minister.
H. They talked that securing sense of pride, dignity of people is their first preference, calling resolution in terms of Insaniyat, but they do not utter a single word about 4 lakh west Pak refugees who are most unfortunate stateless people since 1947, war displaced persons of Jammu living a life of misery due to continuous aggressions of Pakistan.
They even not take into consideration plight of weaker sections of the community that are SC, ST and OBC, who are not given their due right as provided by Union Constitution.
I. For dialogue process they recommend that after the formation of Constitutional Committee to review the laws extended to state after 1952, Dialogue should be started simultaneously with Hurriyat groups, later on ‘joined by stake holders in POK’ and then Pakistan also. But they does not required to have consultations with Jammu people, Ladakh people, Shia Muslims, Gujjar Muslims and refugees of POK and west Pak of 1947, Kashmir Hindu migrant of 1990, because interlocutors does not accept them genuine stake holders.
J. There is a question to be answered by legal luminaries of the country that by making Article 370 permanent, whether J&K would not become a super state in our constitution.
They call for extension of democratic, statutory, institution in J&K but working under the confirmation of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.
Even they recommend fresh financial arrangement between Union and state Govt.
K. This would be ultimately reversal of ‘process of Constitutional integration of Jammu and Kashmir with Bharat’ started in 1947 and may become cause of disintegration of J&K from Bharat and lead to further similar demands of special status from so many other parts of the country also.