| Former Guv Jagmohan opposes pre-1953 status demand | | You will give, we will spend' | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 17: Former Governor Jagmohan has opposed the National Conference demand seeking for Jammu & Kashmir the pre-1953 political and constitutional status and said the demand is fraught with very serious ramifications. He has said that though other states of the Union have also been demanding greater autonomy but they do not mean separation of identities as is the case with Kashmiri leaders of all shades of opinion.
"When other States in the Union ask for greater autonomy, they do not mean separation of identities. They really want decentralization and devolution of power, so that administrative and development work is done speedily and the quality of service to the people improves," he has said, adding that in Kashmir, the demand for retaining Article 370 with all its pristine purity stems from different motivation.
"In Kashmir, the demand for retaining Article 370 with all its 'pristine purity', that is, without the alleged dilution that has taken place since 1953, stems from different motivation. It emanates from a clever strategy to remain away from the mainstream, to set up a separate fiefdom, to fly a separate flag, to have a Prime Minister rather than a Chief Minister, and Sadr-i-Riyasat instead of a Governor, and to secure greater power and patronage, not for the good of the masses, not for serving the cause of peace and progress or for attaining unity amidst diversity, but for serving the interests of 'new elites', the 'new Sheikhs'. All those aspiring to be the custodians of the vote-banks continue to say that Article 370 is a matter of faith. But they do not proceed further. They do not ask themselves: What does this faith mean? What is its rationale? Would not bringing the State within the full framework of Indian Constitution give brighter lustre and sharper teeth to this faith and make it more just and meaningful?," he has said.
He has also said: "In a similar strain, expressions like 'historical necessity' and 'autonomy' are talked about. What do these mean in practice? Does historical necessity mean that you include, on paper, Kashmir in the Indian Union by one hand at a huge cost and give it back, in practice, by another hand on the golden platter? And what does autonomy or so called pre-1953 or pre- 1947 position imply? Would it not amount to the Kashmiri leadership say in: 'you will send and I will spend; you will have no say even if I build a corrupt and callous oligarchy and cause a situation in which Damocles' sword of secession could be kept hanging on your head?"
Indeed, Jagnohan, who knows Jammu & Kashmir very well and understands the psyche of Kashmiri leadership, has called the bluff of the Abdullahs and set the record straight. Interestingly, what Jagnohan said was precisely what the founder of Jana Sangh, Syama Prasad Mookerjee and the nationalists in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh consistently said. |
|
