>Please refer to the following article in the Times of India:
>"Why are mass graves in Kashmir so passé?
>SA Aiyar
>28 August 2011, 12:04 AM IST
>
>The Jammu & Kashmir State Human Rights Commission says 2,730 bodies have been found in unmarked graves in Kashmir. This officially confirms earlier accusations by human rights groups. Security forces once claimed any such graves were those of unidentified militants killed in military encounters. But the commission says 574 bodies have already been identified as those of local villagers, and DNA tests will expose many more. This was mass murder.
>
>Most countries would have treated this as major news, but our media barely noticed. Bored with unending tales of human rights violations in Kashmir, our media saw Anna Hazare's fast and even Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's pregnancy as more newsworthy.
>
>Two decades of insurrection in Kashmir have eroded our ability to feel horror, to be nauseated by mass murder. Yes it's terrible, most people say with a shrug, but it's all Pakistan's fault and we can't surrender to jihadis.
>
>As a libertarian, i dislike ruling people by force, and am dismayed by the parallels between India's independence struggle and the Kashmiri azaadi struggle. Basharat Peer's "Curfewed Nights" and a new collection of writings from Kashmir "Until My Freedom Has Come", highlight Kashmiri humiliation and anger against what they call Indian colonial oppression.
>
>Actually, India has not colonized Kashmir. Rather, it has tried to integrate Kashmir with itself. Nation building is a difficult task that, across the world, has required a mixture of persuasion and firmness. Using this mixture, India succeeded in integrating some regions with secessionist movements — Tamil Nadu, Mizoram, Punjab. But 64 years of this approach have manifestly failed in Kashmir. Using ever more force begins to look like colonial oppression more than attempted integration.
>
>Kashmiri alienation flows from Muslim revolts against the erstwhile Dogra ruler, rigged elections after 1947, and security forces guilty of torture, killing and rape in the name of national security. The Kashmiri insurrection has taken 70,000 lives of civilians, armed forces and militants. Some are due to terrorism, some to genuine defence against jihadis and armed infiltrators. But the mass graves bear testimony to horrors against innocent Kashmiris too.
>
>Secular Indians feel outraged by 900 Muslim deaths in Gujarat's 2002 riots. They are outraged by the killing of 3,000 people by Chilean dictator Pinochet. But they are mostly bored by 2,730 Kashmiri bodies in unmarked graves.
>
>It's all the fault of Pakistan and jihadi terrorists, say some. True, Pakistan trained many jihadis. But many of these were Kashmiri youngsters angered by Indian outrages. They were killed in droves by Indian security forces, and their flow to Pakistan greatly diminished. There was no Pakistani training or inspiration behind the thousands of youngsters who took to the streets during the Srinagar intifada last year. They did not seek union with Pakistan. They simply wanted Indian "killers" off their soil.
>
>Many analysts emphasize the legalisms of Kashmiri accession to India. But hundreds of Indian princes had legal treaties with the British Raj, which our independence movement declared irrelevant after the rise of Indian nationalism. Liberal values cannot be based on legalisms alone.
>
>Let us forget legalisms and hold a plebiscite, which we promised anyway in 1947. Probably the valley will vote for azaadi, with Jammu and Ladakh opting for India. We should see this not as a loss of territory but a gain of moral stature, and return to the liberal values that drove our independence movement.
>
>Most Indians say a plebiscite will wreck Indian secularism and let loose another round of partition killings. Really? If India was so wedded to secularism, it should never have accepted partition along communal lines in 1947. Having agreed to communal partition, it was hypocritical to violate this norm in Kashmir.
>
>In Junagadh in 1947, a Muslim Nawab ruling over a Hindu majority, acceded to Pakistan. India refused to accept this, ousted the Nawab forcibly, and justified this by holding a plebiscite that went overwhelmingly in India's way. If this was a secular tactic, why call a similar plebiscite in Kashmir a danger to secularism?
>
>Critics of a plebiscite claim that a vote for azaadi will trigger fresh partition riots, targeting Muslims throughout India. Really? Is supposedly secular India actually so communal that Hindus will slaughter Muslim innocents galore, with the state a helpless bystander? I have a better opinion of India than that.
>
>Forget what Kashmiris demand. Let us allow self-determination in Kashmir to cleanse our own hands and hearts. This will not mean surrender to militants or Pakistan. It will mean returning to the liberal values of our independence movement, which are getting tainted beyond recognition by the mass graves in Kashmir. We need to regain our capacity to feel horror."
>
>At the time of partition of the country, the Congress party agreed to the division of the country on the basis of two nations theory. Thus a new State Pakistan was created out of pre-partition India which was a Muslim state. The next logical step would have been to declare the other state which was called India, a Hindu state but Pandit Nehru, Gandhi and Patel committed a blunder and made the remaining portion a secular state. The British rulers while granting independence to pre-partition India not only divided the territory directly ruled by them on communal basis and created the two nations of Pakistan and India but also allowed the princely states to remain independent or accede to India or Pakistan. The two Hindu majority states of Junagarh and Hyderabad which were ruled by Muslim rulers decided to remain independent but India soon took action against them and merged them with India. Similarly, the Muslim majority state of Jammu and
>Kashmir ruled by a Hindu ruler decided to remain independent. However, it was attacked by Pakistan sponsored tribals so that it could be merged with Pakistan just as Junagarh and Hyderabad were merged with India but the Hindu ruler of J&K hurriedly agreed to accede to India and then Indian forces drove Pakistanis away from about two thirds of the territory of J&K. Then Nehru took the matter to UN who called for a plebiscite. However, such plebiscite was never held. Therefore, to resolve the J&K issue, it should be divided on the basis of the two nations theory with the Muslim majority areas going to Pakistan and the Hindu majority areas going to India and India be declared as a Hindu nation.
>That would end the tussle between the Kashmiri Muslims and Indian army.Satbir Singh Bedi, BH(Poorvi) 682, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088From: Sandhya Jain <sandhya206@bol.net.in>
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;@mx1.bol.net.in
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:45 AM
Subject: {satyapravah} J&K Interlocutors' report: Unconstitutional ploy to destabilize India-Bhim Singh-20 June 2012
J&K Interlocutors' report: Unconstitutional ploy to destabilize IndiaBhim Singh20 June 2012The criminal silence of the Congress leadership on the highly provocative and vicious 179-page report of three interlocutors submitted to Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram in October 2011 is an alarming signal vis-à-vis the future constitutional relationship of Jammu & Kashmir with the rest of the country. The appointment of three faithful musketeers on such a sensitive situation smacks of a connivance of the Union Home Ministry with the ruling National Conference to destabilize the Indian Union and create confusion regarding the constitutional relationship between the State and the Union of India with an ulterior motive to please the Anglo-American Bloc. The silence of the Congress leadership on the Interlocutors' report is questionable and amounts to acceptance.The report calls for the revision of all Central Laws extended to J&K after 1952. In other words, Central Laws which were introduced by the legislature of J&K after the dismissal of Sheikh Mohd Abdullah in 1953. These laws or legislations include the authority of the Supreme Court of India, the control of Comptroller General of India, the promulgation of the fundamental rights as incorporated in Chapter III of the Constitution of India as well as the supervision of the Chief Election Commission of India.A revision of these legislations means revising the existing constitutional relationship of the State with the rest of the country. This recommendation is totally violative of the mandate of the Constitution of India as also the mandate of the Constitution of J&K.Moreover, after having signed Indira-Sheikh Accord (as this understanding between the two leaders is called) in 1975, this issue was closed once for and for all. Sheikh Abdullah's successor to the post of chief minister has no right to demand revision of the existing State-Centre relationship. The report of the interlocutors amounts to challenging the credibility as well as the validity of the Indira-Sheikh Accord. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah in 1981 had firmly shut this chapter himself after the two reports prepared by two different committees headed by his cabinet colleagues had suggested closure of the issue for good.The interlocutors have heavily pleaded for making Article 370 a permanent feature of the Indian Constitution; least realizing that Article 370 was a temporary provision as intended by Dr. Ambedkar. Making this provision as permanent is tantamount to the virtual secession of J&K from India. This would mean that the Parliament of India shall have no control over the affairs of J&K and the constitutional status of J&K shall revert back to the pre-1947 arrangement. This could lead to a civil war in the state. This report falls within the meaning and scope of Section 120, 121 etc. of the Indian Penal Code as it pleads for secession of the State.The interlocutors have deliberately chosen to avoid the most important issues relating to about 85000 Pakistani refugees who were settled in J&K in 1947/48 by the then administrator appointed by the Maharaja Hari Singh, namely Sheikh Mohd Abdullah. They have been living in J&K as persona non-grata without any civil or political rights. The report has completely rejected the issue of nearly 1.5 million refugees of POK who have been living as migrants in Jammu region since 1947.The report has completely ignored the political issue relating to Delimitation of Assembly Constituencies which has affected largely Jammu Pradesh, where seven Assembly constituencies stand reserved for the SC category. If Delimitation is barred, all the reserved seats in Jammu Pradesh shall remain un-rotated for 40 years. This may give rise to another cause of civil conflict.The interlocutors have completely ignored the findings of State Finance Commission headed by Dr. Mehmood Rehman which had suggested equity proposition to remove discrimination with Jammu Pradesh and Ladakh regions.The interlocutors have deliberately ignored the popular will of the people of J&K that stand for frequent movement of residents of the two sides of the state i.e. between the residents of POK and J&K. The notables from both sides of J&K, who met in 2005 and again in 2007 in Intra J&K 'Heart to Heart' Meet in New Delhi, had conveyed to India as well as to Pakistan that movement across the Line of Control should be made feasible and possible for the passport holders of the respective countries. It should be made easy without visa requirement. This is the need of the hour and in the interests of lasting peace between India and Pakistan.What needs to be done is that India and Pakistan should continue dialogue. A constructive and positive result is possible only when Pakistan is represented by a democratically elected government. Stability and return of democracy is essential to make the peace initiative a success.J&K should be reorganized within the meaning and scope of Article 2, 3 read with the provisions of Article 370 of Constitution of India. Article 370 should be amended so as to empower the Parliament of India to legislate on matters falling within the scope of the Union List vis-à-vis J&K. This shall remove all doubts about the constitutional relationship of J&K with the rest of the country.The Kashmiri leadership has always been hostile to the Treaty of Amritsar 1846, signed between Maharaja Gulab Singh and the East India Company, which established the State of J&K and included Ladakh and Gilgit regions. All the three regions of J&K, namely, Ladakh, Kashmir and Jammu Pradesh, have independent and distinguished cultural, linguistic as well as geographical identities. This is an era of upholding the identity or identities of the people or a region or State.The three identities can survive in harmony and peace provided each one is recognized on the basis of its cultural, linguistic and geographical identity. Jammu Pradesh has multiple of social and political problems which include permanent rehabilitation and settlement of the migrants and refugees from Pakistan and POK. Jammu Pradesh has remained ignored in the field of development, education, agriculture, and otherwise. Ladakh has suffered on all counts of development and communication. The three units shall survive strengthening the bonds of national integration the day they are treated as equals. The interlocutors report is fit for the dustbin and should remain there forever. Let the Central leadership decide what needs to be done.The author is chairman, National Panthers Party; Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India; and member, National Integration Council; the views expressed are personalFollow us on Twitter -
https://twitter.com/#!/vijayvaani
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Fwd: {satyapravah} J&K Interlocutors’ report: Unconstitutional ploy to destabilize India-Bhim Singh-20 June 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment