Neha
Jammu, May 28: The Union Government-appointed interlocutors’ report was made public on May 24. Ever since then, people have been airing their views on the recommendations as contained in the said report. The report has evoked negative response both in Kashmir and Jammu for different reasons. Kashmiri leaders have expressed themselves against the report because they feel the interlocutors have not recommended what they longed for. They long for separation from India and they also want to keep Jammu and Ladakh under their complete control. They also expressed themselves against the report because it has vaguely suggested that three Regional Councils need to be set up in the State, one each for Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. They believe that the idea of Regional Councils, if accepted and implemented, would lead to the disintegration of the State.
The people of Jammu have expressed themselves against the report because it has recommended a review of the Central laws and Central Acts extended to the State after 1952. They have said that the report of the interlocutors, if accepted and implemented, would not only turn the needles of the clock back in the State by almost 60 years and seal their political fate for all the times to come, but would also help Pakistan achieve what it has so far failed to achieve in the Indian Jammu & Kashmir. They do appreciate the Regional Council suggestion, but, at the same time, say, and very rightly, that the establishment of regional council in Jammu within the autonomous state under the overall control of the Kashmiri leadership would be a meaningless sham. They want a definite political instrument invested with the power to legislate and that, too, within India and independent of Kashmir, as they have nothing in common with Kashmir Valley and the Kashmiri leadership. Even the interlocutors have acknowledged that the causes of prevailing discontent and unrest in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh are altogether different.
Ironically, there are elements in Jammu, as for example Jammu University’s Professor of Political Science Rekha Choudhary whose family migrated to Jammu from Pakistan-occupied-Jammu & Kashmir in 1947 to escape torture, persecution, humiliation and physical liquidation at the hands of the ardent believers in the concept of two-nation, have not really appreciated the interlocutors’ approach towards the State. Their approach, they believe, was not “holistic”. Rekha, who is too well-known for her Kashmir-centric approach and bitter opposition to the idea of the State’s trifurcation, for example, has said: “What the report does is to acknowledge the complexity of issues and divergent standpoints and therefore while clearly focusing on Kashmir-specific context of conflict, it seeks to bring into the frame, the ‘Jammu’, ‘Ladakh’ ‘Kashmiri Pandit’ standpoint on the one hand and the cross-LoC linkages on the other. However, rather than addressing the solutions in a holistic manner, it goes on to address each issue in isolation of the other. For Kashmir the issues are sought to be resolved through tackling Article 370 and for Jammu and Ladakh by offering Regional Councils. The biggest limitation of the report is not what is acknowledged by the authors that it could not be based on responses of the separatists, but that it clearly de-links Kashmir from Jammu and vice-versa”.
What exactly she means by holistic approach she has not at all explained. It’s all confusion and nothing but confusion. However, what she has painstakingly explained is her reservation on the idea of dealing with Kashmir and Jammu separately. It appears the University Professor wants a solution that also brings Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmiri Hindus under its ambit overlooking the fact that what is acceptable to the Kashmiri Muslim leadership is utterly unacceptable to Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmiri Hindus, as they are vehemently opposed to the idea of the State getting more autonomy or self-rule, as also overlooking the fact that the separation of Jammu and Ladakh from Kashmir alone could help resolve the issues facing the Valley. Late President, R Venkataraman was not wrong when he asked Prime Minister Indira Gandhi “to give Ladakh what it wants, confer the status of statehood on Jammu and deal with Kashmir separately”.
The so-called political scientists would do well to realize that if a lasting peace is to be forged in Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh have to be separated from the Valley. Not to realize this and to continue to find solutions to the problems of Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmiri Hindus in the solution that is acceptable to the Kashmiri Muslim leadership would be only to create more confusion, as the interlocutors have done.
http://www.jammukashmirnow.org/ju-professor-not-pleased-with-the-interlocutors-approach/
Jammu, May 28: The Union Government-appointed interlocutors’ report was made public on May 24. Ever since then, people have been airing their views on the recommendations as contained in the said report. The report has evoked negative response both in Kashmir and Jammu for different reasons. Kashmiri leaders have expressed themselves against the report because they feel the interlocutors have not recommended what they longed for. They long for separation from India and they also want to keep Jammu and Ladakh under their complete control. They also expressed themselves against the report because it has vaguely suggested that three Regional Councils need to be set up in the State, one each for Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. They believe that the idea of Regional Councils, if accepted and implemented, would lead to the disintegration of the State.
The people of Jammu have expressed themselves against the report because it has recommended a review of the Central laws and Central Acts extended to the State after 1952. They have said that the report of the interlocutors, if accepted and implemented, would not only turn the needles of the clock back in the State by almost 60 years and seal their political fate for all the times to come, but would also help Pakistan achieve what it has so far failed to achieve in the Indian Jammu & Kashmir. They do appreciate the Regional Council suggestion, but, at the same time, say, and very rightly, that the establishment of regional council in Jammu within the autonomous state under the overall control of the Kashmiri leadership would be a meaningless sham. They want a definite political instrument invested with the power to legislate and that, too, within India and independent of Kashmir, as they have nothing in common with Kashmir Valley and the Kashmiri leadership. Even the interlocutors have acknowledged that the causes of prevailing discontent and unrest in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh are altogether different.
Ironically, there are elements in Jammu, as for example Jammu University’s Professor of Political Science Rekha Choudhary whose family migrated to Jammu from Pakistan-occupied-Jammu & Kashmir in 1947 to escape torture, persecution, humiliation and physical liquidation at the hands of the ardent believers in the concept of two-nation, have not really appreciated the interlocutors’ approach towards the State. Their approach, they believe, was not “holistic”. Rekha, who is too well-known for her Kashmir-centric approach and bitter opposition to the idea of the State’s trifurcation, for example, has said: “What the report does is to acknowledge the complexity of issues and divergent standpoints and therefore while clearly focusing on Kashmir-specific context of conflict, it seeks to bring into the frame, the ‘Jammu’, ‘Ladakh’ ‘Kashmiri Pandit’ standpoint on the one hand and the cross-LoC linkages on the other. However, rather than addressing the solutions in a holistic manner, it goes on to address each issue in isolation of the other. For Kashmir the issues are sought to be resolved through tackling Article 370 and for Jammu and Ladakh by offering Regional Councils. The biggest limitation of the report is not what is acknowledged by the authors that it could not be based on responses of the separatists, but that it clearly de-links Kashmir from Jammu and vice-versa”.
What exactly she means by holistic approach she has not at all explained. It’s all confusion and nothing but confusion. However, what she has painstakingly explained is her reservation on the idea of dealing with Kashmir and Jammu separately. It appears the University Professor wants a solution that also brings Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmiri Hindus under its ambit overlooking the fact that what is acceptable to the Kashmiri Muslim leadership is utterly unacceptable to Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmiri Hindus, as they are vehemently opposed to the idea of the State getting more autonomy or self-rule, as also overlooking the fact that the separation of Jammu and Ladakh from Kashmir alone could help resolve the issues facing the Valley. Late President, R Venkataraman was not wrong when he asked Prime Minister Indira Gandhi “to give Ladakh what it wants, confer the status of statehood on Jammu and deal with Kashmir separately”.
The so-called political scientists would do well to realize that if a lasting peace is to be forged in Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh have to be separated from the Valley. Not to realize this and to continue to find solutions to the problems of Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmiri Hindus in the solution that is acceptable to the Kashmiri Muslim leadership would be only to create more confusion, as the interlocutors have done.
http://www.jammukashmirnow.org/ju-professor-not-pleased-with-the-interlocutors-approach/
No comments:
Post a Comment