జమ్మూ కాశ్మీర్ సమస్య గురించి ప్రభుత్వం నిర్మల హృదయంతో ఆలోచించాలి

శ్యాంప్రసాద్ ముఖర్జీ

1953 ఫిబ్రవరి 14 న పార్లమెంటులో శ్యాంప్రసాద్ ముఖర్జీ ప్రసంగిస్తూ కాశ్మీర్ సమస్యను గురించి నిర్మల హృదయంతో ఆలోచించమని ప్రభుత్వ నేతలకు విజ్ఞప్తి చేశారు. 

"మనం ఒకరినొకరం నిందించుకోవద్దు. అలా చేసుకునేందుకు వేరే సందర్భాలు వస్తాయి" అని ఆయన విజ్ఞప్తి చేశారు. తనను, ప్రజా పరిషత్ ను మతతత్వం పేరుతో జవహర్ లాల్ నెహ్రూ పదే పదే నిందించడాన్ని ప్రస్తావిస్తూ ఆయన "ప్రధానమంత్రి మా అందరినీ మతతత్వ వాదులుగా ముద్ర వేశారని నాకు తెలుసు. వాదంలో గెలువలేకపోయిన ప్రతిసారీ ఆయన ఆ సమాధానాన్నే ఆశ్రయిస్తూ ఉంటారు. ఈ అసత్యమైన ఆరోపణలతో నేను విసిగిపోయి ఉన్నాను. ఈ దేశంలో మతతత్వం ఉన్నదా? ఏదైనా రాజకీయ పార్టీ బహిరంగంగానే దీనిని ఆశ్రయిస్తున్నదా? అన్న విషయాన్ని తేల్చడానికి మనం ఒక తేదీని నిర్ణయించుకుని, చర్చిద్దాం. ముందు ప్రభుత్వాన్ని ఆరోపణలు పెట్టమనండి. మేం వాటికి సమాధానం ఇస్తాం. ఈ దేశంలో మతతత్వం ఉండాలని మేం ఎంతమాత్రం కోరుకోవడం లేదు. వివిధ మతాల ప్రజలు సమాన పౌరులుగా, సమాన హక్కులతో జీవించే సమాజం నిర్మాణం కావాలనే మేం కోరుకుంటున్నాం. పరస్పరం అవమాన పరచుకునేందుకు, ప్రయోజనాలు పొందేందుకు సంబంధించిన అంశం కాదిది. జాతీయ ప్రాధాన్యత గల ఒక సమస్యను పరిష్కరించడానికి సంబంధించిన అంశం. ఈ అంశం తీవ్ర సమస్యలను సృష్టించగలదు. దేశంలో అనేక ప్రాంతాలలో శాంతిని, సుఖాన్ని నాశనం చేయగలదు. సమయం మించి పోకుండానే చర్య తీసుకోమని ప్రధానమంత్రిని నేను అభ్యర్ధిస్తున్నాను". 

 

 http://www.lokahitham.net/2012/02/1953-14.html

జమ్మూ కాశ్మీర్ పై మధ్యవర్తుల నివేదిక ప్రగతి శీలమా? ప్రమాదకరమా?

వేదికపై ప్రసంగిస్తున్న డా. జితేంద్ర సింగ్

జూలై 1వ తేదీన బాగ్ లింగంపల్లిలోని సుందరయ్య విజ్ఞాన కేంద్రంలో సోషల్ కాజ్ మరియు జమ్మూ కాశ్మీర్ అధ్యయన కేంద్రం సంయుక్తంగా జమ్మూ కాశ్మీర్ పై మధ్యవర్తుల నివేదిక ప్రగతిశీలమా? ప్రమాదకరమా? అనే అంశంపై జరిగిన సంగోష్టి కార్యక్రమంలో శ్రీ జితేందర్ సింగ్ (బిజెపి చీఫ్ స్పోక్స్ పర్సన్), శ్రీ మాడభూషి శ్రీధర్ (నల్సార్ యూనివర్సిటీ ప్రొఫెసర్), శ్రీ రాహుల్ (కాశ్మీర్ పండిట్) ప్రసంగించారు. శ్రీ రాకా సుధాకర్ కార్యక్రమం నిర్వహించారు. శ్రీమతి సోమరాజు సుశీల గారు (సోషల్ కాజ్) వందన సమర్పణ చేశారు. 

కార్యక్రమంలో శ్రీ మాడభూషి శ్రీధర్ మాట్లాడుతూ "ఇంటర్ లాక్యుటర్స్ అనే పదమే చాలా విచిత్రంగా ఉంది. సమస్యను పరిష్కరించాలని లేనప్పుడు ప్రభుత్వాలు చేసే పని ఒక కమిటీ వేసి అధ్యయనం చేయించటం. కమిటీ నివేదికలో అందరూ బాగుండాలి అని చెప్పింది. అందరూ బాగుండాలంటే సాధ్యాసాధ్యాలు చర్చించాలి. ఈ కమిటీ అట్లా చర్చించకుండా ఇంకొక కమిటీ వేసేందుకు వీలుగా రిపోర్ట్ తయారు చేసింది. ఈ నివేదిక తాజా అభిప్రాయం కాదని ప్రభుత్వ గృహమంత్రిత్వ శాఖ ప్రకటించింది. ఆ నివేదికలో కాశ్మీర్ కు ప్రత్యేకంగా కేటాయించిన 370 ఆర్టికల్ ప్రత్యేక ప్రతిపత్తిని కాపాడటంలో కేంద్రం, వివిధ పార్టీలు విఫలమైనాయనే అభిప్రాయం కనబడుతోంది. తాత్కాలికం అని చెప్పబడిన 370 ఆర్టికల్ ను శాశ్వతం చేయాలని సూచించారు. దీనిలోనే అసలు సమస్య ఉన్నది. ఈ నివేదిక ఎటువంటి ముగింపును ఇవ్వలేదు. ముగింపు ఇవ్వకపోవటమే ముగింపు అని చెప్పింది. ఇంతకాలం అధ్యయనం చేసిన కమిటీ చివరకు చెప్పింది ఇదీ. రాహుల్ మాట్లాడుతూ "కాశ్మీర్ సమస్య గురించి ఎవరు ఎప్పుడు ఎక్కడ  మాట్లాడినా కాశ్మీర్ లోయ గురించి, కాశ్మీర్ ముస్లింల గురించి మాట్లాడతారు కాని, కాశ్మీర్ పండిట్స్ గురించి మాట్లాడరు. ఈ కమిటీ కూడా కాశ్మీరీ పండిట్స్ అభిప్రాయం తీసుకోవటం కాని, నివేదికలో వారి సమస్యల పరిష్కారం గురించి పేర్కొనటం కాని చేయలేదు. 1989 - 90 సంవత్సరాలలో కాశ్మీర్ లోయ నుండి కాశ్మీరీ పండిట్స్ బయటకు వచ్చేశారు. వాళ్ళందరూ దేశంలో అనేక చోట్ల, విదేశాలలో కూడా ఉన్నారు. వారి సమస్యకు పరిష్కారం ఎప్పటికి దొరుకుతుందో? 

ప్రధాన వక్త శ్రీ జితేందర్ సింగ్ మాట్లాడుతూ ... 

కాశ్మీర్ సమస్య పూర్వాపరాలు ఆలోచిస్తే అందులో రాజకీయ సమస్యలు చాల ఉన్నాయి. వ్యక్తిగత ఇష్టాఇష్టాలు ఉన్నాయి. వీటన్నింటికంటే కీలకమైనది పాకిస్తాన్ ఆక్రమణలో ఉన్న కాశ్మీర్ భూభాగాన్ని విముక్తం చేయటం. అదే కాశ్మీర్ సమస్యకు పరిష్కారమని 1994 సంవత్సరంలో కాంగ్రెస్  ప్రభుత్వం ఏకగ్రీవ తీర్మానం చేసింది. అది పార్లమెంట్ మినిట్స్ లో కూడా ఉంది. అంటే అది ప్రభుత్వ విధాన నిర్ణయం. మధ్యవర్తిత్వ కమిటీ (ఇంటర్ లాక్యుటర్స్) నివేదికలో దానికి విరుద్ధంగా ఉండటం దురదృష్టకరం. అసలు మన ప్రభుత్వాలు ఏ సమస్యనూ పూర్తిగా పరిష్కరించక పోవటమే విధానంగా కనబడుతున్నది. చాలా సంవత్సరాలకు పూర్వం అమెరికా ప్రెసిడెంట్ లిండన్ జాన్సన్ ను పత్రికా విలేఖరుల సమావేశంలో ఒక భారతీయ రిపోర్టర్ శ్రీ ఇంద్రజిత్ "టెక్సాస్ సమస్య మళ్ళీ తలెత్తుతుందా?" అని అడిగాడు. లిండన్ జాన్సన్ దానికి సమాధానంగా ఆ అధ్యాయం ముగిసి పోయిందని చెప్పారు. భారత దేశంలో ఏ అధ్యాయానికీ ముగింపు లేదు. అధ్యాయాలను తిరగదోడుతూ ఉంటారు. 

దేశానికి స్వతంత్రం వచ్చినప్పుడు భారత దేశం రెండు భాగాలుగా ఉండేది. 1) బ్రిటీష్ వాళ్ళు నేరుగా పాలించిన భూభాగాలు, 2) బ్రిటీష్ వాళ్లకు సామంతులుగా ఉన్న సంస్థానాలు. బ్రిటీష్ వారు పాలించే భూభాగం స్వతంత్రమయ్యింది. సంస్థానాలకూ స్వతంత్రం వచ్చింది. సంస్థానాలు అటు పాకిస్తాన్లో, ఇటు భారత్ లో ఎక్కడైనా విలీనం కావచ్చు. ఆ సమయంలో 560 సంస్థానాలను పటేల్ భారత్ లో విలీనం చేశారు. కాశ్మీర్ విలీనం మాత్రం నెహ్రూ తన చేతుల్లోకి తీసుకొన్నారు. ఈ సమయంలో కాశ్మీర్ కు సంబంధించి నెహ్రూ మూడు తప్పిదాలు చేశారు. 1) షేక్ అబ్దుల్లాకు మద్దతుగా కాశ్మీర్ రాజుపై వత్తిడి తెచ్చిన కారణంగా జమ్మూ కాశ్మీర్ విలీనం కొంత ఆలస్యమైంది. 2) పాకిస్తాన్ కాశ్మీర్ ను ఆక్రమించేందుకు చేస్తున్న ప్రయత్నాన్ని మన సైన్యం తిప్పికొడుతున్న సమయంలో ఈ సమస్యను ఐక్యరాజ్య సమితి (UNO) కి తీసుకొని వెళ్ళారు. 3) కాశ్మీర్ కు తాత్కాలికం అని పేర్కొన్న ప్రత్యేక ప్రతిపత్తిగా 370 అధికరణం ఏర్పాటు చేశారు. 370 అధికరణం కాశ్మీర్ లోని ముస్లింలకు కూడా సమస్యాత్మకమయింది. దీనిపై చర్చ జరగాలి. తాత్కాలికం అని పేర్కొనబడ్డ 370 అధికరణం ఇంకా కొనసాగుతూనే ఉంది. దీనిపైన బహిరంగ చర్చకు ఆహ్వానించినా ప్రభుత్వం స్పందించడం లేదు. సమస్యను ఎప్పటికప్పుడు పొడిగిస్తూనే ఉన్నారు. ప్రత్యేక ప్రతిపత్తి అనటంలో కొందరికి కొన్ని రకాల మోహాలు దానిపై ఏర్పడ్డాయి. దానిని ఆసరా చేసుకొని రాజకీయాలు చేస్తున్నారు. మధ్యవర్తిత్వ కమిటీ నివేదికలో ఆరు రకాల తప్పుడు సంకేతాలు కనబడతాయి.

1) రాజ్యాంగ కమిటీ ద్వారా 1953 కి ముందు, తరువాత కాశ్మీర్ కు వర్తింపచేసిన కేంద్ర ప్రభుత్వ చట్టాలను పునః సమీక్ష చేయాలని సూచించింది. అంటే పాత విధానాలను తిరిగి తోడాలనేది దాని సారాంశము. అంటే ఒకే దేశంలో ఇద్దరు ప్రధానులు ఇద్దరు రాష్ట్రపతులు, రెండు విధానాలు ఉండటం గతం. ఆ విధానానికి వ్యతిరేకంగా శ్యాం ప్రసాద్ ముఖర్జీ గళం ఎత్తారు. చివరకు బలిదానమైనారు. వాటిని ప్రభుత్వం ఎత్తకెఅలకు రద్దు చేసింది. వాటిని పునరుద్ధరించాలనేది ఆ కమిటీ సూచన. 

2) రాజ్యాంగము 370 అధికర ణాన్ని తాత్కాలికం అని పేర్కొన్నారు. ఆ అధికరణంలోని తాత్కాలికం అనే పదాన్ని తొలగించాలని సూచించారు. అంటే ఆ అధికరణం శాశ్వతం కావాలనేది వాళ్ళ సూచన.

3) కాశ్మీర్ భారత్ లో అంతర్భాగము, అందులో కొంత భాగం పాకిస్తాన్ ఆక్రమణలో ఉంది, అందుకే దానిని పి.ఓ.కే. అంటాము. ఈ నివేదికలో "పాకిస్తాన్ అధీనంలో ఉన్న కాశ్మీర్" అనే పదజాలం ఉపయోగించింది. ఇటువంటి విషయాలు కాశ్మీర్ లోయలోని వేర్పాటు వాదులు మాట్లాడుతూ ఉంటారు. ఆ విషయాలను ఈ నివేదికలో పేర్కొనటం దురదృష్టకరం. 

4) కాశ్మీర్ సమస్య అంటే కేవలం కాశ్మీర్ లోయలోని ముస్లింల సమస్య అనే అభిప్రాయం వ్యక్తమయింది. హురియత్ వాళ్ళతో చర్చలు జరపాలని కూడా సూచించారు. కాశ్మీర్ నుండి గేన్తివేయబడిన హిందువుల గురించి గాని, హిందూ ప్రతినిధులను కలవటం గాని చేయలేదు. ఇది తీవ్ర అభ్యంతరకరమైనది. కాశ్మీర్ పండిట్ లు లేని కాష్మీరియాట్ అనే దానికి అర్థం ఉందా?

5) కాశ్మీరు గవర్నరును నియమించాలంటే కాశ్మీర్ ప్రభుత్వం భారత ప్రభుత్వానికి మూడు పేర్లు సూచించాలి. దానిలో ఒక పేరు ఎన్నుకొంటారు. గవర్నర్, ముఖ్యమంత్రి వంటి పదాల విషయంలో ఉర్దూ పదాలు వాడాలని సూచించారు. ఇది భారత్ ఫెడరల్ రాజ్యాంగాన్ని నీరుగార్చేది.

6) గడిచిన 20 సంవత్సరాల నుండి కాశ్మీర్ లోను, దేశంలోను పాక్ ప్రేరిత ఉగ్రవాదం చాలా తీవ్రమైన సమస్యగా ఉన్నది. ఈ సమస్య గురించి ఆ కమిటీ ఎక్కడా ప్రస్తావించలేదు.

దేశ విభజన సమయంలో, కాశ్మీర్ ను పాకిస్తాన్ ఆక్రమించుకొన్న సమయంలో రక్షణ కోసం అక్కడ నుండి కాశ్మీర్ చేరిన హిందువులు రెండు లక్షలకు పైగా ఉంటారు. వారికి ఈ రోజుకీ అసెంబ్లీ ఎన్నికలలో ఓటు వేసే హక్కు లేదు. 

మధ్యవర్తుల కమిటీ సూచించిన ఇటువంటి వివాదాస్పద విషయాలు కాశ్మీర్ సమస్యకు పరిష్కారం సూచించలేవు. దాని కోసం మరో కమిటీ వేయవలసిన పరిస్థితి నెలకొంది. ఇదే ముగింపుగా కమిటీ సూచించినట్లయింది. 

http://www.lokahitham.net/2012/02/blog-post_1.html

TALES OF TRAVESTY - 65 years of ‘free’ India! - DR. JITENDRA SINGH

“Freedom is a matter of mind and heart”, said Dr S. Radhakrishnan in an Independence Day broadcast to nation as the President of India and added “If the mind is narrow and heart bitter, there is no freedom whatever else we may have.”

Incidentally, we ….. the contemporaries….. the children of “free” India’s first generation stand today as a living evidence of narrow minds and bitter hearts inherently incompatible with the very concept of freedom. As the nation is all set to celebrate the 66th year of its independence, our hearts and minds have much to ask themselves and much to answer.

In an article wittten by him just before his death, an incredibly self-effacing crusader of freedom struggle Achyut Patwardhan had thus referred to the annual observance of Independence Day. “For me, this is not a day of jubilation but one of the silent reflection as to why we have not succeeded in the realization of our major objectives which gave meaning to years of national endeavour. We had no control on what the British were doing, but today we are masters in our own house…. And it is necessary to reflect on what has prevented us during the past years from taking effective steps for what lies totally in our power….”
65 years ago, a wiry ageing Indian stood up to remind his countrymen of their “tryst with destiny”. At the stroke of midnight on 15th August 1947, Jawahar Lal Nehru declared the awakening of India “when the whole world slept”. Today, the self-professed claimants to Nehru’s legacy donot hesitate compromising Nehruvian ideals as long as that ensures the continuance in office of a lameduck Government bereft of initiative and discredited by the presence of ministers who have to go underground to avoid imprisonment for their criminal track-record. If for the independent India’s first generation of politicians, going to jail for the country’s freedom was a matter of honour; for the independent India’s third generation of politicians, going to jail for scam, murder or rape is no longer a shame.
On the eve of country’s first independence day, Mahatma Gandhi had refused to attend the celebrations at Red Fort and instead engaged himself in a lonely trek in the villages of Bengal …. walking on foot, comforting the bereaved and entreating them to remove from their hearts every trace of hatred and distrust. Today, the leaders who outwardly swear by Gandhi are infact the most vociferous in using occasions like Independence Day to seek political mileage through rhetoric of hatred and distrust.
Suspicion. Anger. Grief. Hatred. Greed. Selfishness. Disgust. Vengeance. In the autumn of ’47, it was Hindu and Sikh against Muslim. As the independent nation grew a little older, it was Sikh against Hindu and Hindu against Muslim. Today, as the independent nation matures into 21st century, it is Hindus against Hindu, Muslim against Muslim and Sikh against Sikh. At the dawn of independence, it was the socialist against the capitalist, the “have-not” against the “have”. Today, it is one profiteer against other profiteer, one scammer against another scammer, one corrupt against the other corrupt, one tainted against the other tainted.
Long before India became free, Rabindranath Tagore expressed the wish “Where the head is held high and the mind is without frear….into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake!” Ironically today, our heads have risen so high that we command every other head to bow before us, our minds have grown so fearless that we terrorise our fellow brethren and we have so realized the joys of a heaven of freedom that we wish to have a separate such “heaven” for each one of us.

Deprived of the advantage of parental resources or ancestral wealth or family lineage, the unpatronised uncared unheard unemployed youth of 2012 is the true “disillusioned” son of free India…. even though an unknown son of India. He stands as a complete embodiment of six decades of perverted freedom. Yet, he marches ahead…. Stumbling, falling, abusing, cursing and still rising again. He shall survive to witness another anniversary of India’s independence only if he is spared by the combined menace of state favouritism, terrorism, fanaticism, corruption, price rise and unemployment. And, if he succumbs, his end shall herald the imminent fall of an “apologetic” independence that can no longer sustain Umapathy nor can realize Faiz’s poetic dream of awakening into a cherished dawn “…. Woh Intezaar Tha Jiska, Yeh Woh Sahar Nahin!”


 http://www.jammukashmirnow.org/65-years-of-free-india-dr-jitendra-singh/

The effect of terrorism on tourism in the Valley

 Novita Singh

History bears witness to the fact that whenever and wherever militancy or political movement found roots, the economy of that region became a major casualty. This is true for the Kashmir region as well since 1989. In Kashmir, due to terrorism, there is hardly any industrial sector to talk of; the agricultural sector, though a predominant source of income and livelihood, fails to provide food security to the complete populace of the Valley. It is the tourism industry that fills this vacuum. It is no surprise that the tourism industry was given special status with a view to generate round the year activity. A special outlay of Rs. 22.06 crores was made available during the seventh plan period with which important schemes like Gulmarg cable car and development of wayside facilities were taken up. The result was that the tourist inflow made considerable upward movement in mid-eighties of the last century. However, with the advent of terrorism in the State from 1989 onwards the tourist trade completely collapsed.

Due to militancy, the tourist resorts of the valley could not be maintained and they acquired a shabby and shoddy look. Those engaged with the maintenance and beautification of these resorts did not discharge their duties since this was not a priority for the government whose paramount concern was internal security and maintenance of law and order. Before the advent of militancy, a separate budget was kept for the development of infrastructure and beautification of the resorts which perforce had to be curtailed for use in counter terrorist activity; as a result, the once beautifully maintained gardens turned into bushes. In certain cases, tourist resorts became hideouts and safe heavens for terrorists, some of whom were killed in the resorts. Many resorts were denuded recklessly by timber smugglers and other deceitful persons. This state of disorder also allowed land grabbers and squatters to encroach the land.
Take the Dal Lake as a case in point; its once clear and pristine water became stagnant and full of trash; now sewage and cow dung can be found in plenty along the periphery of the lake. The fate of Manasbal Lake is no different; today it is fighting a losing battle against illegal encroachment with vegetable gardens, toilets, residential structure, garbage dumping sites etc coming up with impunity on the periphery. Wrappers, plastic bags, rags, vegetables peelings, empty cigarette cases and other constituents of garbage can be seen floating in its water, affecting the look of the lake.

The owners of hotels, in earlier times, spent a substantial portion of their earnings on the development of infrastructure. As business deteriorated they lost the will to invest leading to deterioration of their properties; they could barely make two ends meet what to talk of development and improvement. Nearly 1094 houseboats in Dal Lake, Nigeen Lake and River Jhelum and all those people employed in their running were rendered idle. The fate of 2000 “Shikarawallas” in these and other lakes was no better. The average level of occupancy before terrorism was 80% for houseboat owners, 70% for hotel owners and 70% for shikhara owners. This decreased to 5%, 5% and 10% respectively. About 70% of houseboat owners, 50% hoteliers and 40% Shikhara owners changed their occupation during the turmoil. The resultant unemployed youth got sucked in to the gun culture; young people often took to the streets, blocked roads and threw stones at police and paramilitary personnel, causing chaos and unrest. They did all this to give vent to their frustration against the government. It should be noted that the economic cost of the conflict cannot be confined to a particular sector of industry or investment prospects. It affected all important sources of livelihood of local people such as agriculture, horticulture, industry and handicraft industries as well. Moreover, due to turmoil almost all the traders of Kashmir had to shift their trading centers from Srinagar to other places in India.
Conflict retards development, and equally, failures in development substantially increase conflict. The Organization for Economic, Co-operation and Development in 199, argues that sustainable development cannot be achieved without peace and stability, and peace and security are not possible without meeting the basic needs of the people. Turmoil anywhere in the world affects economy directly and Kashmir is not a special case to it. The effect of decades of turmoil is that the state now lags far behind in economic growth as compared to the national level. A survey has indicated that the State had shown 5.27% annual growth during first three years of the tenth five year plan against the national average of 6.6% (Finance and Planning Commission 2007). The State has also felt the direct impact of conflict in terms of huge damage caused by violent incidents on both public as well as private properties. Billions of dollars of legitimate tourism revenue has been lost over the many years when the industry was dormant, Human resources have suffered enormously due to large scale displacement of Pandits, Sikhs and Muslims from the valley. The progressive bent of mind that plays a crucial role in development of society has diminished in the state. Lack of opportunities and overall dismal scenario has led to significant migration from Kashmir valley. Many educated youth from Kashmir valley have started migrating to other parts of India in search of greener pastures, thereby further depriving the State of the human resources. Now that peace is getting to prevail albeit labouriously, it can only be hoped that the region witnesses no revisit of the dismal years of economic, political, social and developmental stagnant which set back the clock for the progressive people. Much has been lost but it can be regained and restored only if peace prevails.

 http://www.jammukashmirnow.org/the-effect-of-terrorism-on-tourism-in-the-valley-novita-singh/

Accession empowered Kashmir to exploit Jammu and Ladakh - Ungrateful Valley

 by NEHA

JAMMU, Aug 17: On August 14 and 15, no Kashmiri hailed the decision of Maharaja Hari Singh to accede his State of Jammu & Kashmir to the Indian Dominion. They should have, but they didn’t do so. They should have hailed the decision because it was the state’s accession to India that enabled Kashmiri leadership to exercise extraordinary legislative, executive and financial powers; and establish its hegemony not only over Kashmir but also over Jammu and Ladakh and exploit them socially, economically and politically. How ungrateful is the Kashmiri leadership!

It did not hail the decision for obvious reasons. One of the reasons is that it doesn’t consider India their country in the real sense of the term. The other reason is that it considers the Indian constitutional framework as anti-Kashmir as well as alien. It believes that Kashmir is inhabited by people who are a distinct nation which cannot live under one unified politico-administrative and constitutional system. In fact, it believes in what Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and Mohammad Ali Jinnah believed in and advocated all through their life. Both advocated the two-nation theory and both made their co-religionists believe that they would always remain a minority in India and that the Congress was a Hindu organization. Sir Syed had even termed the Congress as a civil war without arms, a seditious organization and a Bengali movement. He had even told his followers in Lucknow in December 1887 that “if you wish that the country should groan under the yoke of Bengali rule and its people lick the Bengali shoes, then in the name of Allah jump into the train and be off to Madras, be off to Madras”. The Congress was then holding its third session in Madras (now called Chennai). Both had said that the Hindus and Muslims belonged to two different cultures and civilizations; that their victories and defeats overlap; that they could not live together; and so on.
 
The attitude of the Kashmiri leadership is no different. And its demands which range from merger with Pakistan to independence from India and Pakistan to greater autonomy (read semi-independence) to self-rule (read quasi-independence) to economic independence and to what not need to be viewed in this context. It would not be out of place to mention here that a vast majority of people of Jammu and Ladakh also interprets negatively the decision of Maharaja Hari Singh, notwithstanding the fact that several organizations in Jammu celebrate the accession day with great pomp and show. It says that the accession of the state to India resulted in the slavery of these two regions. It does make a point. Remember, it was Jammu which ruled Kashmir for one hundred one years from March 1846 onwards. Also remember, with the accession of the state to India political power got transferred from Jammu to the Kashmiri leadership which had consistently fought against the Dogras, and even launched Quit Kashmir Movement. The Kashmiri leadership, in collaboration with the Congress, even snatched from Jammu the status of state capital.
It would be no exaggeration to say that the state’s accession to India has threatened the very existence of Jammu Pradesh with the concerned citizens expressing their grave concerns over the impact of Kashmiri leadership on this region and demanding forth with the state’s reorganization. There are cogent reasons to believe that things will assume alarming proportions in this part of the country in the event of the Kashmiri leadership not reforming itself and New Delhi not adopting a holistic approach to the issues facing different people inhabiting different regions. The people of Jammu are seething with anger and their patience is ending and ending very fast. Statesmanship demands a radical change in the system – change that ends Kashmiri domination and gives full opportunity to Jammu and Ladakh to prosper unhindered, preferably independent of Kashmir.

 http://www.jammukashmirnow.org/accession-empowered-kashmir-to-exploit-jammu-and-ladakh/

Understanding the Kashmir Turmoil

by Anil Maheshwari

   


 
 

Kashmir, the most picturesque area in this part of the world, known for its beauty, gardens and gentle people has been reduced to a region of ghosts because of the devious means adopted by Pakistan to incite the people by giving them arms and instigating them into terrorism. This booklet gives a brief insight into the role of Pakistan and the pitiable condition of the people of Kashmir.

 

About the Author Anil Maheshwari, Principal Correspondent of The Hindustan Times, a leading Indian daily newspaper has covered the Kashmir rally extensively from June 1989 to May 1990, the period when hell broke loose there. He has contributed articles for the Economic & Political Weekly (EPW), the Frontier, India Today, Indian Press, Weekend Review, Morning Echo, Sunday Observor & Sportsweek. He specializes in covering terrorists' activities in various north Indian States and communal riots, frequently fissurning the social fabric in the Northern India.

Understanding The Kashmir Turmoil

Kashmir, which was once described by Mahatma Gandhi as an island of secularism in the Indian sub-continent, is in turmoil. Yes it is. It is only democracy that provides an outlet whereby political grievances can be aired, positions narrowed and accomodation achieved. A democracy can deal with a movement of political dissent by talking, discussing and acting. It cannot when the other side does not believe in talking, does not believe in an opposition or representative government, in fact does not believe in democracy itself.
 
 



 Destruction of houses by Pak Trained terrorists

Kashmir, therefore, represents, a major challenge to Indian democracy, in fact to all democracies how can a democracy confront a non-democratic system that only uses catchy democratic phrases such as Human Rights, self-determination etc. in the furtherance of its 'cause' while denying all such democratic values itself ? How can a democracy take on a religious crusade, "Jehad", that does not believe in democratic tenets but exploits them to the hilt for advancing its vested interests ?

Pakistan has claimed for itself a role in speaking for the Indian Muslims, in general, and the Kashmiris in particular. It has claimed the right to extend moral and political support to them. Its covert support in terms of providing arms and training, to terrorists and subversives has already been well documented and exposed.

This tract takes a close look at the situation in Kashmir and at Pakistan's own track record as a 'champion of Human Rights'. Can human rights, essentially a democratic concept, be applied selectively ? Whose human rights are being violated anyway ? What is Pakistan's own record in respecting human rights - and treatment of minorities ? What does self-determination mean in an Islamic context?

Human Rights: Kashmir Incredibility syndrome

The legal position of both India and Pakistan on Kashmir does not need any repetition. The moot point, however, is that the turmoil in Kashmir has transcended the legalities of the accession of the state in 1947, and the insurgency is not a phenomenon of political dissent or a movement meant to change the government but it is a "jehad", a religious crusade against the non-conformists. All Pakistani politicians, from the President downwards, of all hues and colours, the state owned electronic media as well as the print media as a part of the disinformation campaign speak in religious terms the turmoil is cclted 'Jehad-e-Kashmir', the terrorists are called 'Mujahids' (soldiers of Islam), the terrorists, killed in the Armed forces action are called Shaheed (martyrs) and so on.

The covert objective of the so called jehad is to complete the 'unfinished agenda of partition' by incorporating the Muslim Majority state of Jammu and Kashmir in Pakistan in terms of the two nation theory that had rent the sub-continent apart in the past. The two-nation theory - that Hindus and Muslims constitute seperate nations - has already miserably failed, with the creation of Bangladesh. Moreover, the ethnic and sectarian violence rocking several provinces in Pakistan and the bare fact that the muslims, living in India outnumber the muslims in Pakistan have nullified the said two nation theory which was born out of political expediency.
Notwithstanding this Pakistan still cherishes fond hopes to revive the theory, justify its existence and give renewed impetus to its ideological moorings in Kashmir valley.

Strategy of Terrorism

Obstructing Pakistan's designs have been the Hindus, who have lived in Kashmir for centuries, in fact even before the birth of Islam. Also in the way is 'Kashmiriyat' - the Kashmiri way of life, an essentially secular and peaceful spirit that every Kashmiri, whether a Hindu or a Muslim, is proud of. Such a spirit had already frustrated the designs of Pakistan in 1948 and 1965.

Therefore, Pakistan has resorted to killing Hindus systematically and methodically while at the same time introducing religious indoctrination, by misusing mosques and other available platforms, in a bid to frighten the secular Muslims.

As part of unleashing terror under the cover of self determination at the behest of Pakistan, the terrorists have virtually ransacked libraries in educatonal institutions and prohibited books which did not conform to their brand of knowledge. No wonder, more than 2,003 titles were 'pruned'. They included all books of knowledge, Milton's Paradise Lost, G.B. Shaw's plays etc. As part of the Islamisation' drive the terrorists used their gun power to convert the canteen hall of Kashmir University into a mosque. Classes where Darwin's Theory of Evolution was taught were asked to close since it did not conform to the Islamic tenets.

The list of innocent persons who fell prey to the bullets of terrorists is again illustrative of the Islamisation drive. The victims included prominent educationists and subscribers to secular ideals. Professor Mushir-ul-Haq, Vice Chancellor, Kashmir University who was kidnapped and shot dead during 'Ramadan', the holy month of fasting in the Muslim calender, Sarvanand Kaul 'Premi', a poet who used to take pride in reciting The Quran, P.N. Handoo, Assistant Director, Information and octogenerarian Maulana Mohammad Syed Masoodi, a renowned Muslim scholar were among such victims at the hands of the terrorists.

The motivation is obvious. There were people like them who could see the game and had the courage and conviction to speak out against the evil designs and hence some of them had to be singled out for silencing-all in the name of self-determination and human rights, of course.

Forced Migration from Kashmir

In the wake of ongoing terrorists' violence, more than 50,000 families have migrated from strife torn Kashmir valley and got themselves registered with the government authorities in various districts in Jammu region by the end of November 1990. Among them 45,275 families were registered at Jammu itself. They included 215 Muslim, 8270 Sikh and 35459 Hindu (Kashmiri Pandit) families besides 1331 other families. Since then a good number of Muslim families have fled away from the Kashmir valley and barring a handful numbering not more than 100, no Hindus have been left in Srinagar city.

Migrants from Srinagar living in Camps.

The systematic process of killing the Hindu population began as early as on February 27 in 1990 when Mr. Tej Krishan, a Hindu was hanged to death at Yachikot Lidder near Pahelgam in Anantnag district of the Kashmir valley. On April 22 same year the body of Joginder Malhotra was recovered by the police from Safakadal locality in Srinagar city. He was found to have been hanged to death. After five days, terrorists intruded in the house of Bharat Bhushan, another Hindu who was a medical assistant. He was abducted by the terrorists. His body was later found hanging from a tree. The process continued. The list is a long one and the stories of torture unleashed on the Hindu population are heart rending.

Three Probationary officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), an autonomous body, were abducted by the terrorists from a public park on June 23 in 1991. They were severely tortured and locked in a vacant house of a Hindu migrant. The house was later set on fire. Two of them died in the fire while the lucky one was rescued by the police and rushed to the hospital.

In October 1991, the terrorists embarked upon setting fire to the vacant houses of the migrants in another systematic manner. On October nine, the Devi Temple at Baramulla was set on fire. The roof of the temple was gutted in the fire. The same day the house of a Hindu, was gutted in Kupwara town, about 50 kms from Baramulla. The process is continuing. It seems that the terrorists after killing the entire Hindu population from the Kashmir valley now want to close down any process of return of the Hindu population ty burning their vacant houses, their last link with the valley.

Fundamentalism and Human Rights

The concept of Human Rights is a democratic one. It is based on the principle of the essential freedom of the human being and respect for his person. It is a concept in which it is believed that man has certain inalienable rights that are universal. Can a state such as Pakistan that does not believe in the equality of man and woman, where a woman's testimony is only treated as half that of a man, talk about self-determination and human rights ?

In Pakistan, women who constitute about 52 per cent of the population are legally treated as second class citizens. The minorities are legally treated as second c1ass citizens. Even the Shia community among the Muslims who constitute about 20 per cent of the population is not treated at par with other citizens. To cap it all, the denial of equal rights to each and every citizen is justified under the cover of Islam.
The islamic fundamentalists are, however not satisfied with denial of equal rights to a sizeable section. They want that:

1. The Sharia (Koran and Sunnah) should be the basic law of the land.

2. The state should be ruled by a single man (Amir) whose tenure of office and power is limited only by his adherence to

the ideology of Islam.

3. The Amir is to be assisted by a 'shura' (Advisory Council),

consisting of men with the qualifications to make valid applications of the 'sharia'.

4. There should be no political parties and no provision for an opposition.

Obviously, such a system is the anti-thesis of democracy. In a system that does not permit opposition, how would the human rights of the opposition be treated ? The passage of the Shariat Act, the 'huddood' and 'zina' ordinances in Pakistan are the pointers towards the direction in which Pakistan is heading. Under such circumstances, can Pakistan afford to talk about human rights ? Would not the Kashmiris meet the same fate, if accession of the Kashmir valley with it is forced?

Whose Human Rights are being violated ?

Pakistan is trying to focus exclusively on Indian Security Forces action against terrorism, masking the fact that state action cannot be treated as an isolated phenomenon of human rights violations in an atmosphere of continued terrorists' violence.
In fact it is terrorists' volence that ultimately determines the limits and extent of state action to contain it. Unfortunately, for all their efforts, the human rignts organisations, too, have also focussed almost exclusively on state action and not on the activities of the terrorists that prompted the state action in the first place.

Terrorists' violence per se is a violation of human rights. The resolution of the UN General Assembly on measures to prevent internatonal terrorism, passed on December 9 in 1985 followed by the Security Council resolutiion after nine days, interalia "unequivocally condemned as criminal, all acts, methods and practices of terrorism wherever and by whom ever committed, including those who jeopardised the friendly relations between states".
 





Pak rangers imparting arms training to Kashmiri Youth

Don't the terrorists have any responsibility ? And by focussing exclusively on state action, is not Pakistan guilty of distorting the reality?

Moreover, are Human Rights meant only to protect a few fundamentalist Muslims in Kashmir against the authority of the state ? Do they not equally involve protection of the Hindus, Buddhists, Shia Muslims and others against the extermination, persecution and threat? Are they not to be allowed their traditional way of life or are they to be swept under by a religious crusade aiming for Islamisation ?
The right of self-cetermination that Pakistan is championing is in fact a ploy for the creation of a religious state in which religious minorities and women are subjected to servitude. The slogan of Islamic Jehad in Kashmir is itself a negation of the Declaration of Human Rights.

That apart, even less attention has been paid to the plight of migrants, majority of them Hindus, who have been terrorised to migrate from their homes in the Kashmir valley. These migrants have been reduced to live in pitiable conditions, particularly during the winter months, in shabby accomodation or in open. Ironically, the arrested terrorists are in prisons with proper food, clothes and shelter. Are their Human Rights not worth anything ? Do they not even have the right to live ?

Pakistan's Track Record of Human Rights

On the other hand, the report on the state of Human Rights in Pakistan during 1990 and 1991, prepared by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan is an eye opener about denial of basic rights to the majority of the population.

According to the commission:

"The state has shown little interest in accepting the international Human Rights standards".

"The courts cannot invoke international Human Rights values as is being done in several countries such as India because the state does not acknowledge them".

"Lack of interest in bringing the country's basic law in conformity with international Human Rights and norms, keeps alive the danger of new encroachments on whatever fundamental rights are provided in the constitution, particularly through the exploitation of religion".

"A particularly reprehensible tendency is for the state to free itself of its human rights obligations on the pretext of the supremacy of belief, tradition or custom".

Similarly, Pakistan which smugly claims to be a champion of Human Rights in Kashmir has steadfastly and deliberately ignored the following International conventions and protocols on Human Rights by declining to even sign them:

-- International Convenant on Economic, Socal and Cultural Rights;

-- International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights;

-- Optional Protocol to the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights;

-- Second Optional Protocol to the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the

death penalty;

-- International Convention against Apartheid in sports;

-- Convention on the Non-applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against humanity;

-- Convention on the elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

-- Convention on consent to Marriage, Minimum age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages;

-- Convention on the Reduction of statelessness;

-- Convention relating to the Status of stateless persons;

-- Convention relating to the Status of Refugees;

-- Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.

 Destruction of a Bridge in Srinagar by terrorists

 
 

SYSTEMATIC KILLING OF HINDUS

 
 

Bansi Lal Saproo R/O: Gulab Bagh Killed on 24.4.1990

Choni Lal Koul R/O: Churath, Kulgam

 

Ramesh Kumar Raina Killed on 28.5.1990

Raju Sharma Killed on 8.6.1990

 

Chota Lal Maisuma Killed on 7.6.1990

Avtar Krishan Killed on 14.6.1990

 

Janki Nath Killed on 26.7.1990

Rattan Lal Raina Killed on 18.8.1990

 

Omkar Nath Kak R/O: Tarhaman Killed on 29.8.1990

Bansi Lal  Killed on 30.8.1990

 

Dwarika Nath Killed on 13.9.1990

Rajinder Prasad Killed on 15.12.1990

 

Omkar Nath Raina

Shuban Lal Kullan

 

Dina Nath

Killed on 13.4.1990

   
   
 
  http://www.kashmir-information.com/Turmoil/

Interlocutors report on JK- An attempt to turn the clock back?

By Tejaswi Surya, Bangalore

Jammu Kashmir

“ On behalf of the People of India, (The Parliament) Firmly declares that-

(a) The State of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means;

(b) India has the will and capacity to firmly counter all designs against its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity; and demands that –

(c) Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression; and resolves that -

(d) all attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of India will be met resolutely.

Mr. Speaker: The Resolution is unanimously passed. February 22, 1994.”

Following increased terrorist violence and Pakistan’s attempts to highlight the Kashmir dispute, both houses of the Indian Parliament unanimously adopted this resolution emphasizing that Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India, and that Pakistan must vacate parts of the State under its occupation.

Deplorably, the recent report of the government appointed interlocutors on Jammu and Kashmir runs against the very spirit of this unanimous parliamentary resolution.

The Central government appointed the J&K interlocutors group on October 13, 2010 to study the conditions in the trouble-hit valley state and propose recommendations to better the situation. Ever since their appointment the group has found itself mired in one controversy or the other – with even the Chairperson accused of attending a conference organized by exposed ISI agent, Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai. The interlocutors report was made public last week, seven months after it was submitted to the Home Ministry and curiously, two days after the Parliament was adjourned sine die, thereby avoiding immediate parliamentary accountability. A cursory reading of the report is enough to conclude that the recommendations are patently unconstitutional, blatantly illegal and shockingly anti-national. The report, if implemented, will only aid in pushing the state farther in the direction of secessionism and complete autonomy – something that the separatists have always demanded.
A glance at some of the major recommendations of the report will drive home this point.

One of the major recommendations revolves around Article 370 of the Constitution, speaking on which the interlocutors suggest -
“The State’s distinctive status guaranteed by Article 370 must be upheld. Its ‘erosion’ over the decades must be re-appraised to vest it with such powers as the State needs to promote the welfare of the people on its own terms”.

They also recommend reviewing of all Central Acts and Articles of the Constitution of India, enacted after 1952 Nehru- Sheik accord, which they claim has ‘dented Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and abridged the State government’s powers to cater to the welfare of its people’. Further, the report not only suggests the replacement of the word ‘temporary’ from the heading of Article 370 with the word ‘special, but also recommends the deletion of the 1st and 3^rd clauses of Article 370, which empowers the President of India to revoke the said article by a public notification.

These recommendations not only run counter to the sovereignty and integrity of the country, but are also against the vision of our constitutional makers.

This is evident from the words of Jawarharlal Nehru, spoken during a debate on article 370 in the Loksabha on 27-11-1963 –

“Our view is that article 370, as is written in the Constitution, is a transitional, in other words a temporary provision. And it is so…. I do not regard it as permanent.

As a matter of fact, as the Home Minister has pointed out, it has been eroded, if I may use the word, and many things have been done in the last few years which have made the relationship of Kashmir with the Union of India very close. There is no doubt that Kashmir is fully integrated…”

While our constitution makers wanted the gradual ‘erosion’ of article 370, thereby ensuring complete integration of the state with the rest of the country, the interlocutors are suggesting the exact opposite – to check the ‘erosion’ and consequently ensure the distinctive nature of the state for eternity! The damage done by article 370 to Jammu and Kashmir is inexplicable – it has not only been a great impediment for the state to enjoy the benefits of India’s economic growth but has also been a major obstacle in the complete integration of the state – both administratively and psychologically, with the mainstream Indian Union.

It is evident that these recommendations, if implemented, would permanently and perpetually terminate the writ of the Government of India on the state – something that our founding fathers never envisioned.

The report is also a blatant assault on the established federal structure under our constitution.  On the appointment of the Governor, the interlocutors suggest that the State Government, after consultations with Opposition parties shall submit a list of three names to the President from which the President has to choose the Governor – a recommendation that will reduce the power of the Central government over the state in a great way. The interlocutors do not stop there. They suggest amending Article 312 of the Constitution to enable the reduction of the proportion of officers from the All India Services in favour of officers from the state of J&K. As on today, in relation to other states in the country, the proportion of All India Service officers to the officers from the State of J&K stands reduced heavily. This recommendation would further reduce the already dangerously disproportionate ratio.

These recommendations, in essence, immensely reduce the control of the central government over the state which would naturally push the state further in the direction of separatism.

The other suggestions the interlocutors make is the amendment of the Public Safety Act, review of Disturbed Area Act and Armed Forces Special Powers Act and recommend rationalization of security installations through reducing their spread to a few strategic locations and creating mobile units for rapid response. In short, they are suggesting complete demilitarization in the turbulent state, which would make it more vulnerable to terrorist aggression. Moreover, this would negate all the progress that the army has accomplished in the state from decades by paying a heavy price. Contrary to the conclusions of the interlocutors that the removal of the army would enhance the confidence of the people, the presence of the army has, in fact, made people in the region feel much safer. It must also be noted that the demand for review of AFSPA is only from a few districts of the Kashmir region, which are still facing both internal and external aggression. The Army has reported recently of a new trend called ‘agitational terrorism’, which in the form of aggressive street demonstrations in the last few months have resulted in injuries to more than 1500 CRPF personnel while around 400 attacks have taken place on army vehicles. Even to this day, large caches of arms and ammunition are uncovered by the army from militant hideouts. With terrorist organizations like the Hizbul Mujahideen Kashmir, openly declaring that ‘peace in the region would not be possible until the Kasmir dispute is resolved…’ it would be foolish on our part to repeal legislations with give more teeth to our army.  A purely military and strategic decision should not be left to the opportunism of a few political parties with vested interests.

It is also clear that the report has concentrated only on the Kashmir region of the state while completely neglecting the other two regions- Jammu and Ladakh. While Ladakh constitutes 69.60 % of the state’s total land area, Kashmir valley, the most turbulent and vocal one is just 11.48 % and Jammu 18.92 %.  This highly Kashmir centric report completely forgets the needs and aspirations of a sizeable section of the state and therefore cannot be considered objective and all inclusive. One finds no mention of the great amount of problems the people from these regions are facing. No recommendations whatsoever, to improve the conditions of the people of these regions and to ensure their safety, security and prosperity has been made.

It is a matter of great regret that the report, besides making only a passing reference to the Kashmiri Pandits, has not dealt with this burning but deliberately sidelined issue. Even while speaking on the cultural recommendations, the group chooses not to make any reference to the return of Kashmiri Pandits. It is hard to imagine the return of the Kashmiri Pandits, at a time when fundamentalist Islamist militancy has increased in the state. Sadly, there is no road map proposed by the interlocutors to ensure the return, safety and security of the Pandits. How can a pluralist Kashmiri society exist, without the return of the Kashmiri Pandits, who are an integral and inalienable part of the Kashmiri society?

Further, it causes great dismay that the 179 page verbose report does not mention any measures on getting back the Kashmiri territory that has been illegally occupied by Pakistan. Instead, the report refers to the ‘Pak-Occupied- Kashmir’ area as ‘Pakistan-administered-Kashmir’. This, in a way, not only legitimizes the illegal occupation of Kashmir, but also greatly damages India’s long standing line of argument in all international platforms. While the Pakistan government has boldly declared its illegally occupied part of Gilgit-Baltistan as its fifth province, the interlocutors report does not even raise a semblance of a protest against it. Instead, they suggest ‘harmonization of relations’ with ‘constitutional institutions across the Line of Control’, by ‘necessitating wide-ranging constitutional changes in Pakistan –administered Jammu & Kashmir’. What in the world makes the interlocutors arrive at the conclusion that Pakistan-administered- (not occupied!) Kashmir has a ‘constitutional’ government in place, when the central state of Pakistan is itself engulfed in a deep political crisis?!  On the 7^th of August 1952, while speaking in the Lok Sabha, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee had asked about these illegally occupied parts of Kashmir, “Is there any possibility of our getting back this territory? We shall not get it through the efforts of the United Nations: we shall not get it through peaceful methods, by negotiating with Pakistan. That means we lose it unless we use force and the Prime Minister is unwilling to do so. Let us face facts-are we prepared to lose it?”

Today, 60 years down the line, instead of getting back lost Kashmir, we are proposing to lose even the parts of Kashmir that we have with us.

The other recommendations that raise serious doubts on the nationalistic credibility of the interlocutors are the ones on ‘Speeding up Human Rights and Rule of Law Reforms’, which according to them would be achieved by the ‘release of all remaining “stone-pelters” and political prisoners against whom there are no serious charges, withdrawal of FIRs against those of them that are first-timers or minor offenders, amnesty for militants who renounce violence and their rehabilitation, the rehabilitation of all victims of violence, reduction of the intrusive presence of security forces and constant review of the implementation of various Acts meant to counter militancy…”. They also suggest facilitation of free movement of people and trade across the LoC and also the return of Kashmiris stranded across the LoC, many of whom had crossed over for arms training but now wish to return peacefully.
“But how do you determine who is coming inside for peaceful purposes and who is not?” – “Won’t this also facilitate the entry of terrorists waiting across the border, for a ripe moment to enter Indian territories?”, “What filtering mechanism can be put in place?” – On these points, the interlocutors report remains conspicuously silent.  It makes one wonder, if it is the Indian government appointed interlocutors speaking or the leaders of the Kashmiri separatist movement? These are the long standing demands of separatist and militant outfit leaders. By giving heed to these unscrupulous demands in the name of Human Rights and Rule of Law, we would only be jeopardizing the lives of thousands of other innocent Kashmiri civilians.

It would be wrong on my part if I do not commend the interlocutors for the well- meaning suggestions that they have made on the need to improve the economic conditions of the state. Some of their recommendations on economic measures are worth implementing. But what they fail to recognize is that all these dreams for development and prosperity cannot materialize unless the obstacles – administrative, legislative and psychological- challenging the complete integration of the valley state with the mainstream of the country are abolished.

To sum up, it is widely felt that the report of the interlocutors is an insipid document which does not inspire any confidence for both the people of the valley and the rest of the country. Most of its recommendations, if implemented, will weaken our position both internally and internationally. In a way, Ms Radha Kumar, one of the interlocutors, was not wholly wrong when she wrote in a leading daily on their report – “When we wrote the report, it was evident to us it would please none in whole, but might please many in part.”

Whom the report has pleased in part is the question. It certainly has not pleased the nationalists.

 http://samvada.org/2012/articles/interlocutors-report-on-jk-an-attempt-to-turn-the-clock-back-tejaswi-surya/