news details |
|
|
| Jammu has not given mandate to PM & NC to decide its fate | | | RUSTAM
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Aug 16: It was obvious that the Prime Minister's August 10 statement on autonomy would embolden Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to the extent that he would on the eve of the Independence Day rake up the autonomy issue. Remember, welcoming the Prime Minister's announcement in the all-party meeting regarding restoration of autonomy to J&K, the Chief Minister had said "this would help remove the trust deficit that has crept in due to its erosion." "This", he had said, "is a historic opportunity for us and we must take advantage of it."
The Chief Minister didn't stop here. He outraged the nationalist sentiment of the people of Jammu province, or for that manner all the nationalist people of the state, including those of Ladakh and Kashmiri Hindu refugees, when he made the highly controversial statement, which reads like this: "The people in Jammu and Kashmir have cynicism about promises made by the Government of India in the past. And so a need for the Central Government to initiate action to remove all doubts from the minds of the people and bridge the gap that has emerged over the last six decades. I think by restoring autonomy this trust deficit will be removed. I request the Government of India to take urgent measures in this regard." The Chief Minister Omar Abdullah reiterated all this on August 15 as well, saying "Jammu and Kashmir is a political problem and it needs to be addressed politically."
What exactly he meant by what he said on the eve of the Independence Day and on the Independence Day itself? He meant wholesale withdrawal of the Central laws and Central institutions, including the offices of the Supreme Court of India, Election Commission of India and Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, from the state. He meant the turning of the needles of the clock back in Jammu and Kashmir by 57 years. He meant restoration of the pre-1953 politico-constitutional position or semi-independence. He meant withdrawal of the security forces from the state. He meant closure of the Indian politico-constitutional establishment in the state. He meant replacement of the offices of the Governor and Chief Minister with those of Sadar-e-Riyasat and Chief Minister. He meant elected and committed Sadar-e-Riyasat accountable to the state and not to the President of India. He meant Sadar-e-Riyasat who shall hold office so long as he enjoyed the confidence of the ruling party.
The Chief Minister meant committed judiciary. He meant gagged and committed Press. He meant revival of the 1932 Press and Publication Act under which the Council of Ministers enjoyed absolute powers and under which the Council of Ministers could seize any Press or impose a fine on it for publishing an article considered by the Council of Ministers "seditious." He meant withdrawal of even those normal civil and political rights the people of the state enjoy under the J&K Constitution. He meant repeal of the J&K Constitution of 1957 and revival of the J&K Constitutional Act of 1939 under which the state was governed till January 26, 1957, with some changes here and there. He meant the re-establishment of a local oligarchy in the state. He meant the restoration of the obnoxious Permit System in the state. In other words, restrictions on the people of the state to visit different parts of India and restriction on the people of the rest of the country who would wish to visit the state. That means everyone would again be required to obtain a permit in case anyone wants to visit the state and the vice-versa. He meant ban on IAS, IPS and IFS officials. He meant committed election office. He, in short, meant undoing all that so far has been done to integrate the state politically, constitutionally and socially into the national mainstream.
But more than that, the Chief Minister meant imposition of the will of the Kashmiri separatists and communalists on the people of Jammu province and other nationalist segments of society in the state. This is utterly unacceptable.
Who has given the Chief Minister the mandate to speak on behalf of the people of Jammu province and other patriotic forces in the state? Who has given him the authority to speak on their behalf and take a decision on their political future? The people of Jammu and Ladakh and the Kashmiri Hindu refugees do not want what the Chief Minister wants. On the contrary, they vehemently oppose what the Chief minister wants. They are for their full merger with India. They want a dispensation that is under the Indian Constitution. They are fed up with the Kashmiri leadership and they want a separate dispensation. Who has authorized the Chief Minister to speak on their behalf? Jammu has not given him the mandate. Ladakh has not given him the mandate. Kashmiri Pandit refugees and similar other communities, which have suffered at the hands of the fanatics, have not given him the mandate.
The Chief Minister would well not to speak on behalf of those who are against autonomy. Similarly, the Prime Minister would do well to redesign his policy towards the state taking into account the ground realities in the state. Neither the Prime Minister not the Chief Minister would be allowed by the people of Jammu and other nationalist groups in the state to tinker with the Indian sovereignty. This is their firm resolve. They are determined to resist with full might all such moves as are aimed at throwing in their lot with the Kashmiri separatists and diluting the Indian sovereignty in the state. (Concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
