Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Rediff.com interviews Arun Kumar: ‘Report on J&K contrary to India’s stand on the state’


Dismissing the interlocutors report on the state of Jammu and Kashmir and questioning the credentials of the interlocutors, National Convener of Jammu Kashmir Study Center, a Jammu-based research group, Arun Kumar, says that the report only captures the perception of the country.  
Arun Kumar, National Convener of JK Study Centre
Interview with Priyanka, Rediff.com

Beyond the Line of Control, the terrain goes into Pakistan occupied Kashmir. (Inset) Arun Kumar, National Convener J&K Study Center

Arun Kumar asserts that the report dilutes India’s stand on J&K. Kumar argues that while the country has always maintained that J&K is an internal matter, the report says, ‘J&K should be acting as a bridge between Indian, Pakistan and central Asia’, a considerable shift from India’s traditional stand on the issue.
Kumar feels that though many of the observations cited in the report might be correct, the conclusions drawn are a complete mismatch, mainly because the recommendations of the report were predecided.
Arun Kumar spoke to rediff.com‘s Priyanka.

Arun-Kumar-JK-Study-Centre

How do you see the report?

Broadly speaking, we feel that the mandate and mission of the entire exercise is in itself debatable. The interlocutors were appointed by the home ministry. All their programs and meetings there were arranged by the government. And the ministry decides to put up the report online after keeping it with themselves for seven months saying the views expressed are not of the government? What does this mean? Were they (the interlocutors) representatives of the government of India?

So, you think this report has been made by the home ministry?

Of course, the interlocutors had gone to the state of Jammu & Kashmir on behalf of the home ministry. This is a home ministry’s report. Whatever recommendations the interlocutors have made are those of the home ministry. Furthermore, we suspect that the recommendations made were scripted well in advance. We knew it would be like this.

Look at how the interlocutors were chosen. The interlocutors are neither residents nor stakeholders of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. MM Ansari (former central information commissioner  and one of the interlocutors) has never even been to J&K before this report. Their credentials are doubtful. There is non-seriousness about the report.

What are the issues in the report that trouble you the most?

There are many. For instance, the report says that the state of J&K should be acting as a bridge between Indian, Pakistan and central Asia. How can J&K being a bridge when it is an integral part of India.
The report uses the term ‘Pakistan Administered Kashmir’ whereas we say ‘Pakistan Occupied Kashmir’. How can they use such a term? This word is used by the separatists. We have been fighting in the United Nations for 64 years that Pakistan is the aggressor and we are the victim. Pakistan has never addressed this region as Pakistan Administered Kashmir; they call it ‘Azad Kashmir’.

In a decision taken by the Pakistan supreme court in 2004, the court said that it cannot interfere in matters related to Azad Kashmir. Hence, something that has been established that the region is not a part of Pakistan is being challenged by the report

The interlocutors are speaking the language of the separatist because they are their agents. Look at their credentials. Both Dilip Padgaonkar (eminent journalist) and Radha Kumar (noted academician Radha Kumar) were regulars at Ghulam Nabi Fai’s (Kashmiri separatist) conferences.

What do you think the report is trying to build?

In 2006, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and General Musharraf had come together to work on a track to diplomacy and a pact was believed to have been agreed upon. Besides others, the pact, broadly, said that LOC (Line of Control) would be accepted as the international border, and the state of Jammu & Kashmir would be given maximum autonomy on both sides. It thus tried to achieve a win-win situation for both India and Pakistan.

The purpose of this report is to legitimise the pact between Manmohan Singh and Musharraf.

How is this win situation for India?

The question that comes to everybody’s mind is whose report is this?

Is this the government of India’s report? The interlocutors appointed by it.

Our stand has always been that Jammu & Kashmir is an internal matter. But soon after the pact, the prime minster says that both Pakistan and India are victims. Later, it is conceded that a dialogue should be started with representatives from PoK and people from Pakistan. You are then accepting it as a dispute.
Gradually, they are shifting from what our policy on J&K has always been.

The report makes some grave observations about conditions in Kashmir?

The report cites that the reasons of victimhood of Kashmir are rigged elections, arrest of popular leaders and human right abuses and violence perpetrated by militants, and security forces. How can you equate the two?

Look carefully at the use of words; you can’t say the security forces perpetuated violence.
The report later concludes that all these factors collectively resulted in a start point for religious extremism. Hence there are demands in the state ranging from ‘azadi’, ‘establishment of Islamic state’, ‘autonomy self rule’ and ‘an achievable nationhood’.

And all this happened because ‘Special Provisions’ under article 370 was taken back? I can assure you that nobody in Jammu & Kashmir can tell you that. Don’t you see any international party or Pakistan’s role here?

Doesn’t the report capture the popular or majority sentiment of what the people of the state feel?

All the major political leaders who claim to represent the entire state — Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti, Mirwaiz, Yasin Malik, Sajjad Lone, all of them represent only two districts out of the 22 districts in the state. And all of them represent only one section, namely the Kashmiri speaking Sunni Muslim. Don’t the remaining 20 districts have any leader or representation?

18 percent of the state population is Gujjar Muslim. Where is their leader?

90 percent of the population in Kargil is Muslim. Where is their leader?

Basically, they have captured the perception of the country. These people are not the real voice of the state.

What are the other problem areas in the report?

The report has not addressed the real issues of Jammu & Kashmir. There is a chapter on economics that says that there is heavy corruption in the 16 flagship schemes started by center, and no infrastructure development can happen without assistance from the central government. After making all these observations, they say employment can’t be generated because there is no investment, and hence the special status of the state should remain.

There is a total mismatch between the observations made and the conclusions drawn.

Furthermore, there is nothing about the settlements of over 10 lakh PoK refugees. Where is the roadmap on how to bring Kashmiri pundits back?

There are about four lakh refugees on the west part of the state. They have been living without citizenship for the past 64 years. Why doesn’t the report address their problems?
There is a false concept of Kashmir alone being the victim. Isn’t Jammu a victim; isn’t Laddak region a victim?

There is no 73rd and 74th amendment in the state and panchayati raj has not been implemented. After making all these observations, the report recommends that Parliament should not extend any new law.
All this is politics of appeasement. As long as you see problems in Jammu & Kashmir from a Hindu-Muslim angle, as long as vote bank politics rules, there will be no solution. You will have to see it as a national security issue.

Source: http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-report-on-j-k-contrary-to-indias-stand-on-the-state/20120625.htm

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Ladakh—Most Neglected Region of J&K


image

Kashmir used to attract national and international attention. After all the state was known by this name and during the entire debate over the future of the state, it was called the Kashmir problem. 

By Balraj Puri

Kashmir used to attract national and international attention. After all the state was known by this name and during the entire debate over the future of the state, it was called the Kashmir problem. Jammu asserted its right to be noticed and succeeded to a large extent through its 62 days long unprecedented massive protest in July-August last ostensibly over the issue of land allotment to the Amarnath Shrine Board. 

 Kashmir valley had always attracted national and international attention, for obvious reasons and Jammu also mainged to be in the media highlights during two month agitation on Amarnath Land row. 

But the third region of the state namely Ladakh and its problems are still not known and discussed even—outside the region within the state. In fact the constitution of the state does not recognize the region unlike Jammu and Kashmir. It was been treated as a district of Kashmir division and administered from Srinagar, from which it remains cut off for more than half of a year. The district was further divided in two parts on religious lines viz Buddhist majority Leh and Muslim majority Kargil. As common administrative links were snapped, the composite and secular character of he region was seriously damaged. 

Three years ago it witnessed first communal riots. Not long ago the communal divide was so blurred that inter-faith marriages were not unknown. Ladakh region with an area of 96,701 square kilometers is more than the combined area of the rest of the undivided state. This trans Himalayan region, inhabited by Tibetan, Mangolian and Dardic races, was conquered by Dogra army and made part of the J&K state and India in mid nineteenth century. But it never reconciled to the loss of its independence. Nor the changeover after 1947, which its people described as change of Dogra Raj to Kashmiri Raj, satisfied them. 

In mid fifteens, Kushak Bakula, the spiritual and political leader of the region, warned that "the nostalgic longing for a union with their spiritual home, Tibet, still exists. After Chinese occupation of Tibet, the loyalty of its people shifted to India. But they continued their struggle for recognition of their identity and some degree of self-rule. Kushak Bakula was willing to reconcile to his region remaining a part of the state provided it was recognized as its federating, unit. Speaking in the Constituent Assembly of the state, he said, "The region would bear the same relations to the state as the state does to India." This was, in fact, promised by Nehru and Abdullah at a joint press conference in July 1952. They had said that when the constitution of the state would be framed, it would provide for regional autonomy. The commitment was reiterated by the Kashmir leader a number of times, even after resuming power in 1975, under an accord with Indira Gandhi. 

 As these commitments were not honoured, the Buddhist leaders raised the demand for separation of the region from the state and for a Union Territory status within India. It was not supported by the Muslims of Kargil, though they were equally dissatisfied with their somewhat subordinate status within the state. Eventually, Narsmiha Rao, as the Prime Minister of India, conceded autonomy to Leh district. I asked him "when Ladakh as a whole demanded regional autonomy you did not concede it but why you conceded it for Buddhists of Ladakh alone which would divide it on religious lines." He insisted that it was for the whole of the region. With his permission, I phoned Padamanabhia, who was Home Secretary as well as secretary, Kashmir affairs of the Union Government. He confirmed my interpretation of the government decision. I asked Narsmiha Rao would he like to clarify the point by speaking directly to Padamanabhia. He said that he had heard his comments but wondered how it happened. Evidently he confused Leh with Ladakh. The autonomous council, which after some years was granted to Kargil also, complicated the matter further. For the councils were not given powers more than elected boards enjoy in the rest of the country. 

Moreover, the region as a whole did not get autonomy, as promised to it, and is administratively governed by Srinagar. But the grant of regional councils created an emulative interest in Muslim majority district of Jammu. Their demand is being encouraged by most of the Kashmir centric parties. If granted, their experience would be no less litter than that on the two districts of Ladakh have. District autonomy granted to Leh and Kargil should be granted to all districts of the state as a part of the principle of democratic decentralization but if it was done at the cost of regional autonomy, the district would not get share in political power and weakening of regional identities would weaken the greatest secularizing force in the state. It would automatically provoke and strengthen the movement for separate state status for Jammu, mostly comprising its Hindu majority areas. 

Thus Buddhists of Leh are now demanding for Union Territory status, cut of from Muslims of Kargil. In the last election to the no called Autonomous Council for Leh, the Union Territory Front won 24 seats out of 25, conceding only one Muslim majority seat to the Congress. In the recent election, the Congress did not oppose the popular Buddhist sentiment while the BJP espoused the cause of Union Territory Front; just as in Jammu it played second fiddle to the BJP. The Congress leader and minister in Omar's government from the region, Nawang Rigzin Jora, conceded "the Union Territory status is not only the demand of certain organizations but of each and every individual of the region." "The Autonomous Council in which Union Territory Front had overwhelming majority," he added "has failed to achieve its objective." He hinted that without being in power and without making it a part of overall demand of the autonomy for the state, the demand of Leh could not be conceded. 

In Jammu also, the only factor that helped the Congress to get more seats than the BJP in the election to the state assembly was that the BJP could neither come to power nor any Kashmir based party would share power with it. Without attending to the basic urges of the people and allowing them to drift in divergent directions would have dangerous implications for the state. In short, such drift should be checked by firstly moving for a constitutional amendment which grants an equal regional status to Ladakh like other two regions. And to ensure unity of the state and secular character of the region, long promised regional autonomy be implemented. As a massure of satisfying the urge for empowerment of the people, at all levels districts of the state should be given the status that Leh and Kargil have enjoyed with further devolution of power upto Panchayat levels. 

 http://www.kashmirnow.com/Articles/10222-LadakhMost-Neglected-Region.html

An Awareness Campaign on Jammu & Kashmir: Arun Kumar

Shri Arun Kumar, Director, Jammu Kashmir Study Centre, New Delhi, who visited Chennai last week threw some light on how media has projected the Kashmir issue and the real position prevailing in that region.




Arun-Kumar-JK-Study-Centre

Majority of ordinary Indians are emotionally attached to J&K and want it as an integral part of Bharat. Most of the intellectuals in India are in a defeatist mood and suggest that we should leave Kashmir and move on. The year 2012 is the year of Bharat in J&K.  We had two such situations earlier as well when the J&K could have been easily integrated with Bharat. The first was in 1947 when there was no sense of alienation and we could have extended the entire Indian constitution to J&K. The second time was in 1971 when 94000 Pakistani troops surrendered to Indian Army and the Kashmiris were disillusioned with Pakistan. The political leadership of India failed to capitalize both these occasions.
Today, terrorism in Kashmir is in its final days and there is no live support structure for terrorists in J&K. Separatists have learned three important things:-

1.     India wouldn’t give up J&K. If they want to live in J&K, they have to live in India.

2.     India cannot be defeated or made to bow down through arms struggle.

3.     Nationalists of J&K cannot be taken for granted. Amarnath agitation was the turning point in the struggle between Nationalist and Separatist forces.      
                                                   

The current socio-political milieu is very favourable for the nationalist forces. The ruling party requires support of the MLAs from Jammu and Ladakh to remain in power. All the major parties have equal support in Kashmir Valley. There are many differences amongst the separatist leaders and groups. Thus, this is our time to move in and carry on our work.

What should we do? – A nation wide information/ awareness campaign covering the seven points mentioned below about J&K is to be taken up immediately. It is our duty to carry on this campaign among all sections of society particularly, Sangh Swayamsevaks, intellectuals, media and opinion makers.

A.   We have to clear 4 myths that are in the mind of the nation about J&K.

B.   We have to spread 2 important points about J&K: – for this we have to change the discourse on J&K.

C.   We need to have a pro-active agenda for J&K.

A. The 4 Myths:

1.     Myth of Separatism: Everyone think of J&K as a separatist and anti-Indian state. This is a wrong notion. Separatists are active only in Kashmir. Kashmir is the smallest region of the state with a Muslim-majority. All the separatist leaders are from a single community – Kashmiri speaking Sunni Muslims. All the other communities including Gujjar, Pahadi and Shia Muslims are fighting against the separatism and so-called alienation.

2.     Myth of Dispute: There is a big confusion about merger of J&K with India even in the minds of the senior leaders of our nation. Raja Hari Singh of J&K signed a document of accession which was the standard format used for the accession of all the other Princely states with India. This was unconditional. The only document which talks about asking the wishes of people is a letter from Lord Mountbatten – this is not a collateral document and hence not legally substantial. On 6th February 1954, the J&K Constituent Assembly (duly elected by people of J&K) ratified the accession of J&K to India. Hence, legally and constitutionally, J&K is an integral part of J&K India.

3.     Myth of Plebiscite: There is a general belief among intellectuals of India that we have committed for a plebiscite in UN. There is no such commitment. India complained on 1st January 1948 to UN Security Council under UN Charter 35 to force Pakistan to withdraw their aggression from our lands. In 1958, UN Security Council proposed a resolution which called for unconditional withdrawal of Pakistan forces from POK, disbanding of AJK government, extension of J&K Government to AJK, resettling all the Indians who were forced to leave AJK, India to move required number of forces and J&K Government to conduct plebiscite under the supervision of UN Plebiscite Commissioner. Pakistan did not agree and act upon this UN proposal; hence there is no need for India to carry on any plebiscite.

4.     Myth of Autonomy: The only purpose of Article 370 is to extend the union constitution to J&K. It neither gives special status nor guarantees autonomy for J&K. The heading of Article itself says it is temporary and this needs to be repealed. It was only a political fraud to keep the so-called Kashmir separatism alive.

B. Change the discourse on J&K from Kashmir to POK: We have to make the Nation aware of two important points about J&K:

1.     The current POK is very important for India’s security and economic growth. To illustrate, Gilgit (Baltistan) is the only place on the earth which was the meeting place of 6 empires. For the past 2400 years, except for the British, all invasions on Bharat were through Gilgit. If Gilgit is safe, it means India is safe. Gilgit lies on the ‘Silk Route’. Gilgit is connected by road to many important cities of the world such as Moscow, Iran, Dubai and London. Through Gilgit, we can get gas through pipelines from Tajikistan.

2.     The entire people of J&K are the real victims, not just the Kashmiri Muslims. In particular, there are more than 20 lakh refugees from J&K who have lost their homes. This also includes 4 lakh Kashmiri Pandits who became refugees in 1990s. More than 10 lakh refugees came from POK during 1947 war and many more were affected by terrorism. Many good provisions of Indian constitution are not extended to J&K. For example, in Jammu and Ladakh, there was no reservation for SCs till 2007.

C. Proactive Agenda: We should set a proactive agenda to reach the people and get back POK. In J&K, the nationalist people feel that the problems are created, nurtured and carried on by Delhi. Whenever the time was ripe for integrating J&K with Bharat or abrogation of Article 370, the Central Government has miserably failed. Even now, interlocutors sent by the Government have come out with recommendations that are not only anti-national but also contradict the stand taken by the Government itself. Some of their recommendations are: -
  • POK called as Pakistan Administered Kashmir (only separatists call POK by this name)
  • Review of all laws extended after 1952
  • Article 370 to be made permanent
  • Appointment of Governor to be made on the recommendation of the State Government
  • Withdrawal of the IAS/IPS officers appointed by GOI

These recommendations not only weaken India’s stand in the international arena but also dilute its sovereignty on J&K. Every section of the society should be made aware of the anti-national nature of these recommendations and should be opposed.

Do you know…

a.     In last the 20 years of war against terrorism, 5000 soldiers have sacrificed their life; 85000 AK47s and 1 lakh KG of RDX has been confiscated.

b.     85% of area of J&K state is Hindu and Buddhist majority.

c.      Independence Day and Republic Day are the most celebrated public programmes of Jammu and Ladakh regions.

d.     The J&K Maharaja used to pay only four goats and four Kashmiri Shawls for paramountcy to Britishers.

e.      Lord Mountbatten accepted the accession of J&K with India and so was not given an audience with the British Crown till his death.

f.       Sri Krishna Menon spoke for 8 hours in UN Security council on J&K on 23rd Jan 1957. This speech answers all the legal and constitutional questions on J&K.

g.     26th October (Kashmir’s accession to India) and 22nd February (Parliament unanimously passed a resolution of taking back POK) should be celebrated as Kashmir day and Sankalp Diwas respectively all over the nation.

h.     Prem Shankar Jha’s ‘Kashmir 1947: The Origin of Dispute’ discusses the circumstances and Anglo Saxon diplomatic conspiracy which created the Kashmir ‘dispute’.

A treasonous, insidious document. Throw it in the dustbin

Don't turn the clock back to 1948. Interlocutors’ insidious plan
 
Dr Bhagwati Prakash Sharma

Sudden release of the report of a group of 3 interlocutors appointed against the explicit intent of the Parliament on Kashmir was unwarranted and out of context on May 24, 2012. It reflects deliberate malice of the government to fill wind in the sails of separatists and add fresh fuel to Kashmir problem at a time, when the jehadi separatists have lost steam and the Pakistan is also striped of its energy and intent to breed any fresh problem. Timing of release of this retrograde report, seven months after its submission and without any fresh context for its release, is just to divert the attention of the public and opposition away from the utter failure of the Sonia-Manmohan government on the economic front.
$img_title 
Release of such an anti-India and retrograde report replete with illegitimate recommendations is the most sinister design, though in vain, to legitimise altogether anti-national recommendations which are also ultra-vires the constitutional provisions. This report had to be rejected in toto, instead of being released at the behest of the government for public debate, which explicitly undermines the intent of the Parliament. It is needless to remind that the Parliament had unanimously resolved on February 22, 1994 that the accession and integration of the Jammu & Kashmir into the Union of India is full and final. The unfinished agenda to be fulfilled on the front of Jammu & Kashmir, is to take back the Pak occupied territories of it. But, in contravention of this explicit resolution of the Parliament, the release of this interlocutors’ report recommending to undo all the actions and decisions of the Parliament on Jammu & Kashmir is unconstitutional. How can the 3 interlocutors devoid of any constitutional locus standi can recommend to water down all the parliamentary enactments on Jammu & Kashmir brought since 1952. What authority the government has, to release such anti-national and retrograde recommendations, officially for public debate, which question the very wisdom of the Parliament on all its pronouncements on Kashmir. It is nonetheless than clear breach of privilege of the Parliament.
 
Though, the separatist factions too have rejected the report in toto. Yet, official release of this illegitimate report authored by a committee lacking any locus standii de jure, will equip traitors and anti-national forces, in and out of India, to draw pseudo legitimacy for anti-India demands related to Jammu & Kashmir.
 
How could the Government of India dare to put in public domain, even for informal debate a report reversing the integration of Jammu & Kashmir into Indian Union. It is altogether anti-national on the part of the Central Government to put into public domain the recommendations that attempt to revive the pre-1953 status of Jammu & Kashmir. These recommendations include setting up of a Constitutional Committee (CC) to review all central laws and articles of the Constitution of India extended to the state after 1952, to identity which of these have dented Jammu & Kashmir’s special status and abridged the state government’s powers. Equally detrimental to the national integrity and unity of the country is the another recommendation which aims to curtail the Parliament’s power to make laws for the state (Jammu & Kashmir) except relating to country’s security and vital economic interests in the areas of energy and water resources. Thirdly the committee has also recommended to make the Article 370 permanent. How can it (a committee of dubius track record) prevail over the Parliament’s vision and power to amend the Constitution and enact laws. It was not a commission constituted by the Constituent Assembly or Parliament to recommend constitutional reforms, including the censure of the Parliament’s law making authority and to curb it. Then, how such a committee constituted by an executive order can recommend to limit the Parliament’s power?
 
The government has no right to circulate any such report which is violative of the Parliament’s unanimous resolution dated February 22, 1994. Unless the Parliament itself takes a different stand, no such interlocutors can interfere with the Parliamentary pronouncements. The unanimous resolution adopted by the Lok Sabha with regard to J&K firmly declares that (a) the state of J&K has been, is and shall be 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, (c) India demands that Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian state of J&K which it has occupied through aggression and resolve that; (d) all attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of India will be met resolutely.
 
It is again most deplorable that two members of this three-member committee were alleged of attending parties hosted by Pakistani ISI lobbyists during their tenure as interlocutors. Now, their very report is questioning the Parliaments’ wisdom, since 1953, in enacting laws for Jammu & Kashmir and in extending the Articles of the Constitution of India to Jammu & Kashmir. The committee has not stopped itself there, but, has even recommended to stripe the Parliament of India, of its power to make laws for the state of Jammu & Kashmir.
 
It is also treacherous to dilute India’s claim on the Pak occupied Kashmir by deliberate use of the words ‘Pak Administered Kashmir (PAK)’ by these interlocutors, instead of ‘Pak Occupied Kashmir (POK)’ being used officially by India. Change of the words to ‘Pak Administered Kashmir’ adds legitimacy to Pakistan’s continued occupation of areas of Kashmir. While the words ‘Pak Occupied Kashmir’, being used by India, throughout these years, since Pak occupation, describes it (Pakistan) as illegal occupant. In terms of International Law, this easing out of India’s claim on ‘Pak Occupied Kashmir’ by using the words ‘Pak Administered Kashmir’ adds legitimacy to Pakistan’s governance over that area and jeopardises India’s position. This mischievous change in the phrase has to be condemned and such a lapse on the part of the government to officially release such a treacherous report jeopardising India’s position on J&K vis a vis Pakistan is unpardonable. It is even more deplorable that this report has been authored by the members being alleged to have enjoyed parties hosted by Pakistan ISI lobbysts, and they have even recommended to curb the Parliament’s power to make laws for J&K as well as to roll back the constitutional provisions made applicable in J&K after 1952. The government has an explicit responsibility to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution and Parliament of the country. Therefore, release of a report questioning the sanctity of Constitutional provisions and the Parliament’s law making authority should not have been released by the Union Government.

A Treasonous document: Call it Hurriyat Report

Interlocutors’ report on J&K

Pramod Kumar

The Interlocutors Report on Jammu & Kashmir is no surprise. After all, what else could have been expected from the Interlocutors, who were seen enjoying luxurious hospitality of ISI agent Ghulam Nabi Fai before submitting their report! The Home Minister is also a culprit in this case, as despite knowing their ISI links he continued such people in this team.

What has come out in the form of a report by this team is a treasonous document which reflects no different mindset than the report of 5th Working Group constituted by Dr Manmohan Singh in 2007 under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court judge Shri Saghir Ahmed. The report strengthens the anti-India as well as pro-separatist stand on Kashmir and is a clear attempt to confuse the nation on public expenses. “What was the need to spend so much money for a report like this, as it could have been procured free of cost from the Hurriat leaders,” comments J&K Study Centre chairman Jawaharlal Kaul.

The report suggests formation of a Constitutional Committee to review all Central Acts and Articles of Constitution extended to J&K after signing the 1952 Sheikh-Nehru Agreement and recommending, wherever needed, withdrawal of the same. It talks of dual character of J&K, dual status of people of J&K, and Delhi Accord of 1952 as basis of the Centre–State relations.  It further suggested to make Article 370 permanent by deleting the world ‘temporary’ from its description and naming it ‘Special Status Article’ by amendment in the Constitution. Referring to Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) as ‘Pakistan Administered Kashmir’ the report says that the people who have come to this side from ‘Pakistan Administered Kashmir’ have no right to vote in elections and seek employment in J&K.

The interlocutors clearly try to dilute the authority of India over J&K by recommending that the State Government should send three names with opposition’s consultation to the President of India, who would accept one of them for the post of Governor. They even recommended the use of equal denomination of Urdu words for Governor and Chief Minister.

The word ‘Pak Administered Kashmir’ is the term which is normally used by separatists. Even Pakistan never used this word and called it only ‘Azad Kashmir’. This also goes against the February 22, 1994 Resolution of Parliament on J&K that resolved for liberation of PoK. How could the Ministry of P Chidambram overlook such acts of the Interlocutors is a big question.

The interlocutors stress the need to start dialogue with Hurriyat groups, then with the ‘stake holders in PoK’ and then with Pakistan. But at the same time they do not require to have consultations with the people of Jammu, Laddakh, Shia Muslims, Gujjar Muslims, refugees of PoK and West Pakistan of 1947, Kashmiri Hindu migrant of 1990, because the interlocutors do not accept them as ‘genuine stake holders’.

The report mentions the people who were uprooted from Pakistan occupied areas in 1947 as ‘migrants’ whereas in the order of 1950 signed by Sheikh Abdullah and Nehru they were named as ‘Displaced Persons’ and still they, for all technical reference purposes, are known as PoK Displaced Persons. This shows the casual approach of the Interlocutors. PoK displaced persons do hold the status of State Subjects of J&K/permanent residents and hence have right to vote for J&K Assembly, right to employment in J&K services, right to admission in state professional colleges and right to property. “This clearly demonstrates that the interlocutors team has made no attempt to know about the realities of J&K and were ignorant of the facts even after spending one complete year on the job. It appears they were pre-occupied with the concepts and did not make use of any information that was provided to them by local people from outside the conventional resource teams and those particularly from areas outside Kashmir Valley,” says noted columnist of Jammu and also an expert on J&K affairs Dayasagar.

The interlocutors accept the sense of deprivation and discrimination in Jammu and Laddakh regions, but do not call for ‘delimitation of Assembly and Parliament seats’ to end the manipulated domination of Kashmir in state’s politics. “There is no discussion about registration of PoK people, their representation in Parliament and demand of filling 24 vacant legislative seats kept for people of PoK by 10 lakh refugees presently in Jammu and rest of India. Even there is not a single word on fate of most unfortunate four lakh refugees from West Pakistan since 1947. The report also does not take into consideration the plight of weaker sections including SCs, STs and OBCs, who are deprived of their due rights provided by the Constitution of India due to Article 370,” added Shri Kaul.

The interlocutors claim that their report addresses the ‘sensitive issue of deep-rooted feeling of victimhood prevailing in Kashmir Valley’ but they do not explain who are responsible for spread of misinformation, creating mistrust between rest of India and Kashmir Valley, misgovernance in the Valley, communalisation of the society in Kashmir, spread of terrorism, permitting false sense of victimhood to be used by the ISI and Pakistan against India, forced migration and persecution of Kashmiri Hindus, and marginalisation of nationalist forces in the Valley. In the entire report there is not a single word for praise for the security forces, accepting the role of Army and criticising the intentions of Pakistan. But the interlocutors did not forget to call the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) as ‘controversial’, and suggesting review of Disturbed Area Act, Amendment of PSA, as, they said, all these laws are cause of miseries for the people of the Valley.

The team claims to have met 700 delegations and a few thousand people of 22 districts of J&K. But they have not quoted the names of the persons and the suggestions made by the people outside Kashmir Valley. No separatist leader met them in Kashmir Valley, but they still recommend the Union Government to engage them in dialogue. “It is a report that Union Government and the State Government required in the name of consensus of people and stake holders of the state. This is addressed only to the separatist mindset, which is in minority in the state by the confused, ignorant and compromising attitude of India,” added Shri Dayasagar.
 
The government while distancing itself from the report described it as the ‘views of the interlocutors’ and called for an ‘informed debate’ on it. But the question is why it loaded the report on the website of Ministry of Home Affairs, if it disagreed with its findings. Also loading the report on the website just next day of the Parliament session is over (May 24) also raises questions on the intention of the government.
 
The group of three interlocutors (Dileep Padgaonkar, Radha Kumar and MM Ansari) was appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs on October 13, 2010. It submitted its report to Union Home Minister P Chidambaram on October 12, 2011. While constituting the team, the terms of reference of the interlocutors were not made clear to the public. Only thing the people could understand was that a group of three has to feel the pulse of the people of J&K and communicate the same to the central government. How would the central government proceed on their report too was left undisclosed. “But one thing was sure that the people who were really concerned about the affairs of J&K (particularly the state of affairs that people of J&K were living in for the last over 20 years) did believe that the need for appointing the interlocutors had resulted not out of unemployment or lack of development or socio–economic disparities.

The need had surely resulted out of the conceptions that the affairs of J&K were suffering due to some local conflicts pertaining to the history of accession of princely State of J&K with India, its relationship with Indian dominion, and the Constitutional status of J&K with regard to India. Had the need for appointment of the Interlocutors been for development and unemployment like issues then the Central Government and the state government had many senior and professional people and associate institutions to look into. Had the Home Ministry read the contents of the report, it would have outrightly rejected it since it raises questions on J&K being integral part of India, what to talk of retaining the report in files for 7 months and then suddenly making the contents  public,” asks Shri Dayasagar.

By and large this report is broadly based on the National Conference’s agenda of Greater Autonomy, PDP’s document of self-rule, Sajjad Lone’s book Achievable Nationhood and the separatist demands of Geelani and Meerwise groups of Hurriat. These recommendations of the interlocutors will only create confusion about the accession of J&K in India.

The entire nation rejected the report the same day it was loaded on the website. Many organisations, including the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, ABVP, J&K Study Centre and Bharatiya Janata Party, criticised the report. “The report is a verbose document written in denial about certain basic realities. The key problem confronting the state is terrorism, both cross-border and local, which is engineered either from Pakistan or local separatist groups. The report offers no solution to this problem other than suggesting dilution of anti-terrorism steps. It also offers no response to the rehabilitation of the people displaced from the Valley. It also weakens the Indian position stated in the 1994 resolution of the Parliament,” said BJP spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman.

Saturday, June 02, 2012

Is Hurriyat reconciling to ‘change’ in Kashmir?

JAMMU, May 20: When a day after the opening of Darbar in the summer capital last fortnight Mr Omar Abdullah chose Budgam to be the venue of his first public meeting of the season in Kashmir, residents had a host of reasons to stay away. They were least interested in the Hurriyat’s politics—AFSPA, bunkers, inquiries, human rights—that has been acquired in second-hand by the Valley’s mainstream political outfits, including the opposition PDP and the ruling National Conference. People seemed to be equally disinterested in the local Hurriyat leader’s reaction. Ironically, Anjuman-e-Sharee Shia’an chief, Aga Syed Hassan, did not talk about Azadi, human rights and the UN resolutions. In his hard-hitting statement, Aga expressed his concern over Budgam’s poor development, while making his point that the ruling NC had failed to deliver on the developmental and governance front in the last eight years. None other than Aga’s son-in-law, Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi, has been functioning as MLA from Budgam since 2002. Since July 2009, Ruhullah has been functioning as a Cabinet Minister in Omar Abdullah’s government.

“Not a single lavatory has been built in Budgam. They have just given IAY (Indira Awas Yojana) units to a few in Budgam”, Aga Hassan lamented in his reaction to the Chief Minister’s visit and public meeting. “Just a handful of people attended their public meeting when they showcased the participation of someone related to the respected dynasty (of the Agas)”, he said with obvious reference to the son-in-law Ruhullah’s participation in CM’s rally. He said with and without insinuations that the NC’s MLA and Minister of Animal Husbandry, Aga Ruhullah, had beseeched Chief Minister to announce a developmental package for Budgam but Omar categorically ignored the MLA’s demand.

Added the Hurriyat stalwart: “Gone are the days when masses used to follow men simply due to their relationship to respected dynasties”. Without much equivocation and obfuscation, Aga Hassan suggested that Aga Ruhullah had failed to represent the people of Budgam and, as such, they deserved to be represented by a competent politician. Reading too much in Aga Hassan’s statement, residents insist that the Hurriyat leader had, for the first time, conveyed to the all concerned publicly that Ruhulla should be replaced in the forthcoming Assembly elections either by himself or by his son—Aga Mujtaba.

According to reports in wide circulation, but awaiting confirmation, relationship between the pro-Azadi father-in-law and the pro-India son-in-law has remained strained since last year. Many in the Valley’s political circles believe that the e-mail, that originated from the official ID of Aga’s Anjuman and claimed that a Minister of Omar Abdullah’s Cabinet had acquired a Rs 50 Lakh BMW out of “bribe money”, had been circulated from the Agas’ kitchen. That explosive email had led to speculations that the Hurriyat leader was projecting his own son as Ruhulla’s replacement in the next Assembly elections.

This watershed does not seem to be restricted to the Shia-dominated district headquarters of Budgam. Well around the timing of Aga Hassan’s hair-raising statement, another senior separatist leader and two-time Chairman of undivided Hurriyat Conference, Prof Abdul Gani Bhat, decreed at his first public rally in hometown Botengo (Sopore) that the UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949 could not provide a solution to the Kashmir problem. It has straightaway hit the hornets’ nest.

Prof Gani’s extraordinary projection of his son as his successor is also being widely interpreted as the separatist leader’s urge to send “real and competent peoples’ representatives” to the platform of governance and development. Like Budgam, Sopore has gone nearly unrepresented since the three-time MLA, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, resigned in 1989, alongwith three other MLAs of the Muslim United Front.

Those viewing politics as the art of the possible insist that even the most “cowardly” and reserved, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq was yearning for the change. “Status qua”, according to his various assertions, is not in the interest of the “freedom movement”. The young Mirwaiz, holding a substantial mass base in downtown Srinagar, has avoided to be expressive in the matters of electoral politics but people close to him swear that he too was not expecting miracles from the post-9/11 situation. Even in the pre-1990 decades, Mirwaiz dynasty has never shared the power directly.

As the history goes, Mirwaiz Umar’s father and founder-chairman of Awami Action Committee, Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq, spearheaded a pro-Pakistan sentiment for 40 years. During the same course, he became part of a Janata Party-led alliance and played host to Prime Minister Morarji Desai at Mirwaiz Manzil in 1977, only to pull down Sheikh Abdullah. Nine years later, Mirwaiz Farooq became a key protagonist of the Rijiv-Farooq-Farooq alliance, with arch rivals Dr Farooq Abdullah and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, when New Delhi decided to restore power to the NC. Two of Mirwaiz dynasty’s nominees—Pir Mohammad Shafi and Mohammad Shafi Khan—were installed as “independent” MLAs from Zadibal and Iddgah respectively with the support of NC and Congress in March 1987.

Significantly, since the failure of the street agitation of 2010, Mirwaiz Umar has been laying remarkable emphasis on the issues of development and governance. Lately, he has been seen inaugurating commercial complexes and asserting against the menace of corruption in the state government. Political observers are now expecting Mirwaiz to field proxies in the Municipal elections, much like his separatist colleague Abdul Gani Lone’s son, Sajjad Lone, allegedly did in the Assembly elections of 2002. It took Sajjad and his sister next six years to directly contest the elections, albeit unsuccessfully.
Reports from North Kashmir are suggestive of a changing political spectrum in Lone’s Kupwara district too. Two of late Gani Lone’s children have left no stone unturned to consolidate their father’s constituency in the last three years in particular. That both of them are particularly eying the estranged Peoples Conference activist and incumbent MLA Engineer Rashid’s segment of Langet is evident from the frequency of their public meetings and movement.

For the first time in the last 10 years, Lone’s successor son in the Hurriyat, Bilal Lone, is going to organize his father’s assassination ceremony in Langet. The Lone siblings have also successfully cut away some prominent activists from Er Rashid, NC and the PDP. For now, it appears that the Lones have reconciled to NC’s and PDP’s strength in Handwara and Lolab respectively but their electoral ambitions are stark in remaining three segments of the district—Langet, Kupwara and Karnah.

By the separatists’ own admissions, militants have assassinated family members of all the four “moderate” separatist leaders. Mirwaiz Umar’s father, Mirwaiz Farooq, was shot dead at his Nageen residence on May 21st, 1990. Five years later, Prof Gani’s brother, Mohammad Sultan Bhat, was gunned down in his village, Botengo. Aga Hassan’s brother and prominent Congress leader, Aga Syed Mehdi, was blown into pieces alongwith his driver and six PSOs when militants targets his vehicle in a landmine explosion near Kanihama, on Srinagar-Gulmarg Road, on November 25, 2001. Bilal’s father, Abdul Gani Lone, was gunned down on occasion of Mirwaiz Farooq’s assassination anniversary at Eidgah grounds in Srinagar on May 21, 2002.

There is a palpable breeze of the changing political spectrum in Kashmir since November 2010, when the myth of America’s support to the “Kashmir cause” exploded with Barack Obama’s speech in the Indian Parliament. But, expecting the Hurriyat to contest elections without green signal from Islamabad would be, least to say, foolish.

http://www.jammukashmirnow.org/is-hurriyat-reconciling-to-change-in-kashmir/

ABOUT J&K INTERLOCUTORS REPORT



A. Report of Interlocutors on J&K by Union Govt. is not the outcome of the interactions with more than 700 delegations, three RTCs, mass meetings conducted by them while visiting all the 22 districts, but this is a report as Union Govt. and State Govt. required in the name of consensus of people and stake holders of state.  This is addressed only to the separatist mindset of J&K which is in minority in the state by the confused, ignorant and compromising attitude of Bharat.

Basis of their thinking in last 64 years are misconceptions that they have proposed for themselves. These ill conceived propositions are-

1. Jammu-Kashmir is a unique state having unique Geography, unique History and unique problems. When problem is unique then solution should also be unique. Jammu-Kashmir state is not like all other states of Bharat.

2. Jammu-Kashmir is Kashmir. Kashmir voice is the real will of people of state that is exhibited by NC, PDP and Hurriyat

3.  Due to Muslim majority J&K state, it should be given special treatment.

4. Accession was conditional, there were some pre-conditions.

5. Article 370 ensues J&K state some sort of Autonomy as well as special status. Article 370 gives state a dual character.

6. Article 370 is not procedural mechanism but basis of relationship between centre and Jammu & Kashmir. Delhi Accord should be the basis of final resolution.

7. Jammu & Kashmir is a dispute between Bharat and Pakistan.

8. Kashmir has its own identity that is Kashmiriyat.

9. Jammu – Kashmir people are not like people of rest of Bharat but have dual status.

10. Parliament and Union institutions should have limited application on J&K states and so also on confirmation to the wishes of Kashmir.

B. In their report Interlocutors are making fools of the nation:

1. According to them they does not recommend Pre-1953, but call for reviewal of all Union acts and laws extended to state after 1952 and further recommends that this reviewal should be on the basis proposed by them considering. Dual character of J&K state, Dual status of people of J&K and Delhi Accord, 1952, as basis of centre – state relationship.

They talks about 1994 resolution of Parliament on J&K but call POK as Pak administered Kashmir, accepts Hurriyat’s pre-condition for solution that Bharat – Pakistan – and both regions of J&K should be accepted as stake holders. They signified importance of J&K as a bridge between central Asia and South Asia. In their approach, Bharat is South Asia and Jammu-Kashmir is a bridge not gateway of Bharat to rest of the world or Mastak (head) of the Bharat Mata. The resolution revolves around much talked Manmohan – Musharaf Pact in Track II diplomacy of 2006, agreed for Joint control, shared sovereignity, demilitarization, porous irrelevant borders, maximum possible autonomy to both of the regions. Reports of working groups made by PM in 2006 also have recommendations on the above lines, these are again toed by interlocutors.

C. Interlocutors terms Article 370 a special status provided to J&K state in our constitution, but at same time recommends the word ‘Temporary’ mentioned in title of Article 370 to be deleted and further replaced by word ‘Special.’ They recommend Article 370 to be made permanent and also call that no further Parliament laws, amendments should be extended to J&K state other than internal security or security and vital economic issues.

D. They accepts sense of deprivation, discrimination in Jammu and Ladakh, but does not call for ‘Delimitation of Assembly and Parliament seats’ to end manipulated domination of Kashmir in state’s politics. They even does not accepts people of Jammu, Ladakh, different groups of refugees as stake holder in final resolution.

There is no discussion about registration of POK people, their representation in Parliament and demand of filling 24 vacant legislative seats kept for people of POK by 10 Lakh refugees presently in Jammu. Even there is not a single word on fate of most unfortunate 4 lakh peoples of west Pak, refugees since 1947.

E. They claim, the report is to address ‘sensitive issue of deep rooted feeling of victimhood prevailing in Kashmir valley’ but does not explain who are responsible for spreading of misinformation, creating mistrust between rest of Bharat and Kashmir valley, misgovernance in valley, communalizing the society of Kashmir, spreading of terrorism, permitting false sense of victimhood to be used by ISI and Pakistan against Bharat, forced migration and persecution of Kashmir Hindus and Sikhs and refugees of 1947 and marginalizing of nationalist forces in valley.

F. In whole of the report not a single word of praise for security forces, accepting the role of Army, criticizing intentions of Pakistan, but they call AFSPA ‘Controversial,’ Reviewal of Disturbed Area Act, Amendment of PSA as these laws are the cause of miseries of most privileged people of Bharat those are valley people.

G.  They tried to dilute authority of Bharat over state by giving recommendations:

1. State Govt. should send three names with opposition’s advice to President, who would accept one of them for the post of Governor.

2. Union quota in administrative service in state is presently 50% instead of 66% in other states. They give advice for further gradual reduction in favour of state cadre.

3. They even recommended the use of equal denomination in Urdu for words Governor and Chief Minister.

H. They talked that securing sense of pride, dignity of people is their first preference, calling resolution in terms of Insaniyat, but they do not utter a single word about 4 lakh west Pak refugees who are most unfortunate stateless people since 1947, war displaced persons of Jammu living a life of misery due to continuous aggressions of Pakistan.

They even not take into consideration plight of weaker sections of the community that are SC, ST and OBC, who are not given their due right as provided by Union Constitution.

I. For dialogue process they recommend that after the formation of Constitutional Committee to review the laws extended to state after 1952, Dialogue should be started simultaneously with Hurriyat groups, later on ‘joined by stake holders in POK’ and then Pakistan also. But they does not required to have consultations with Jammu people, Ladakh people, Shia Muslims, Gujjar Muslims and refugees of POK and west Pak of 1947, Kashmir Hindu migrant of 1990, because interlocutors does not accept them genuine stake holders.

J. There is a question to be answered by legal luminaries of the country that by making Article 370 permanent, whether J&K would not become a super state in our constitution.

They call for extension of democratic, statutory, institution in J&K but working under the confirmation of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.

Even they recommend fresh financial arrangement between Union and state Govt.

K. This would be ultimately reversal of ‘process of Constitutional integration of Jammu and Kashmir with Bharat’ started in 1947 and may become cause of disintegration of J&K from Bharat and lead to further similar demands of special status from so many other parts of the country also. 


Brief observations on the Final REPORT of Group of Interlocutors for J&K ( A New Compact with the people of Jammu and Kashmir ) Daya Sagar30 May 2012


It was on 13th Oct 2010 that Ministry of Home Affairs GOI appointed a group of three Interlocutors on Jammu and Kashmir. The terms of reference of the interlocutors  were not made that clearly public.  Only thing the people could understand was that the GROUP of THREE had to feel the pulse of the people of J&K  and  communicate the  same to Government of India. How would government of India proceed on their report too was left un disclosed. But one thing was sure  that  the people who were really concerned about the affairs of J&K (  particularly the state of affairs  that people of J&K were living in for last over 20 years ) did believe that the  need for appointing the interlocutors had  resulted not out of unemployment  or  lack of development  or  socio – economic  disparities. The need had surely resulted out of the conceptions  that  the affairs of J&K State  were suffering  due to some  local conflicts pertaining to the history of accession of princely State of J&K with India, it’s relationship with India Dominion ,  and the constitutional status of J&K wrt to India. Had the need for appointment of the Interlocutors been for Development and unemployment like issues   then GOI / State Government  had many senior and professional  people in the Government  and associate institutions to look into. So, after the report was submitted by Dileep Padgaonkar , the team leader  of  ( Chairman of the 3 Member Interlocutor Committee – Dileep Padgaonkar, Radha Kumar  and M. M. Ansari)) to Union Home Minister  P. Chidambram on   12th Oct 2011 people were anxiously waiting to know about the contents  of the report and the plans of GOI as  regards the contents of the report.  With Dileep Padgaonkar  in the team  people  expected that this report would not  be like the report of  the likes of the  Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh’s  5th working Group on J&K  that did no good except pushing the people of J&K  into more  confusions.  Any how nothing much fruitful was expected from the interlocutors  report , but still inview of the reputation that atleast Dileep Padgaonkar enjoyed as a journalist  one would expect that  he would do some independent research and come out from the web of  the  information  net that has been woven over the years with the yarn produced  from the same class of campaigns  and with new Delhi  not handling the affairs seriously. But now after the contents   were available  in the media on 24th May 2011, it has been more of disappoint to many.  Going by the face of report it need not be discussed. But since such incomplete documents can otherwise be used by the trouble makers , the report is being discussed here.

Interlocutors Report  exposes the non seriousness of GOI /MOH

What was GOI doing with the report for last 7 month since it was submitted in 12th Oct  2011 ?
No doubt the opinions of individuals could be different .  Leave aside technicalities ,but in  the case a report  / opinions also reflect ignorance  or mis quotes of some very vital  facts  / technical  references  by the authors, then there are sure reasons for outright rejection rejection.

i.                    The Interlocutors’ report   refers the Pakistan Occupied areas of J&K (Kashmir) as Pakistan Administered part / Areas  of Kashmir  ( J&K ). How could GOI accept the report with such a reference is a question?

ii.                  The interlocutors report says that the People who have come to this side from Pakistan Administered Kashmir have no right to vote in elections and seek employment in J&K. This is totally wrong. POJK displaced persons   do hold the status of State Subjects of J&K / Permanent residents of J&K and hence have right to vote  for J&K Assembly , have right to  employment in J&K Services , have right to admission in state professional colleges and right to property.  This clearly demonstrates that the interlocutor team has not made any attempt to know about more realities of J&K and were / are still ignorant of the facts even after spending one complete years on the job. It appears that they were pre occupies  with concepts and did not make use of any information that was provided  to them by  local people from outside the conventional resource teams and those particularly from areas outside Kashmir Valley.

iii.                All through the report in a way refers the issues and affairs as Kashmir affairs and proposes to suggest a report for bringing peace to J&K

iv.               The interlocutors report mentions the people who were uprooted from Pakistan occupied areas of J&K in 1947 as MIGRANTS where as it vide an order of 1950 signed by Sheikh Abdullah Prime Minister  that the people uprooted / thrown away from the Pakistan Occupied Areas  of J&K  were named as  Displaced Persons and still they for all technical reference purpose are known as POK DPs . This shows the casual approach of the Interlocutors. Those families who went to Pakistan from J&K in 1947 were named as MIGRANTS by  local government under same order of 1950.

v.                 The Interlocutors report in a way goes against the  Feb 1994 Resolution of  Indian Parliament on J&K that resolves  for liberation of  Pakistan Occupied Areas of J&K . The report does not treat those areas as occupied areas  and instead names the areas as  Pakistan Administered Areas. How could ministry of P. Chidambram  over look  such acts of the Interlocutors is a question.

vi.               With this type of  understandings and levels of information that the Interlocutors  have displayed , the  inferences drawn and proposals made by them can surely not deliver any good for the people of J&K.

It appears that either GOI / MOH  was not serious  about the objective behind appointment of interlocutors  or  the Home Minister of India has  not gone through the report of the Interlocutors. Had the MOH of India read the contents of the report , the ministry would  have out rightly rejected it since it raises questions on J&K being integral part of India , what to talk of retaining the report in files for 7 months and then  making the contents  public.

2   Article 370  has not given a special status to J&K  State

Yes one thing good has come out from the  REPORT of the  Group of Interlocutors for J&K  2010. All these years even the professionals and “EXPERTS”  of J&K affairs  have been under the impression / have been cultivating that article 370 Has given  constitutionally a  special status to J&K  State. Where as  it has not been a fact. So, unfortunately for India even those sitting in the chairs of governance too did not make any effort to  un do this  wrong  explanation. The result has been that separatists and anti India elements have been able to use it as a tool to mis inform the common man. Now the Interlocutors when caught in the net of technicalities have been compelled by the conditions to say that ARTICLE 370 is not a Special Status Article as regards J&K.  And have rather proposed to amend it as Special Status article. They have also inferred that it is a temporary provisions and  be made a permanent provision after amendment.  Suggestions for calling it Special provision, for calling it permanent by amendment  and the like are opinions and  are subject to constitutional / legal/ political examination.

3. Report has  self contradictions

i.           The Dileep Padgaonkar report  (Group of Interlocutors for J&K ) at places reflects   that disturbances / political overtones  in J&K are not due to communal intentions of some . Where as at other places   the IR report sermons that  in case  the demands  for trifurcation of J&K  ( Jammu State , Kashmir State and Union Territory Ladakh )  are accepted , the muslims of 5  majority districts of Jammu region would be forced ( much against their grain) to cast their lot with Kashmir Valley  would like to go with Kashmir valley p-36.  Do the interlocutors mean that what has happened in Kashmir valley / what has been demanded by Kashmir Valley leaders  is because majority is muslim ? no it  is not simply  so.

ii.                   The IR report projects that people of Ladakh Region and Jammu region do have grievances against the government alleging that they have been discriminated by the valley dominated governments and opinion makers. But the same report simply opines  that the people do not want trifurcation .

iii.                The report simultaneously suggests   formation of three REGIONAL Councils with some legislative powers too. Who has been the guide  of the interlocutors could be question. When people want to stay together where comes the need for regional councils with some legislative powers ? p-5

4. Framing of a Constitutional Committee for review of  Laws / Acts

The Interlocutor report suggests re formation a Constitutional Committee to review all Central Act and Articles of Constitution of India extended  to J&K after signing  1952 Sheikh Nehru  Delhi Agreement  and recommending ,where ever needed ,withdrawal of the same.  The suggestion is conflicting since  does not make any reference of the D D Thakur Committee  outcome  that was constituted after Sheikh Mohd Abdullah took over as Chief Minister of J&K. The recommendations are hypothetical and need not be taken notice .

i.                    The other question could be who will select / elect the Chairman and members of Committee that has to recommend undoing the actions of elected  constituent assembly / legislative assembly / parliament of India ?

ii.                  How will the recommendations  be implemented on case to case basis  by presidential orders / under Article 370.Who will  recommend / concur  reversal ?

iii.                Report recommends amendment / modification of Article 370 where as so for all experts have been saying “ article 370 “ can neither be operated nor abrogated .

iv.               More so Article 370 id for extension , it is not for repeal

5. Status can not be so simply taken back to 1952 or so
In case inspite of all constitutional   lacunae / ills it is still accepted that  legal / constitutional position be taken back to July 1952 or 8th August 1952 then … Who will order this …President can not do on his own…..who will recommend to president … Union cabinet can simply do so …State  Government can not do so …There will be no State Assembly…There will be no J&K Constitution…
In case the present J&K Assembly is taken as Constituent Assembly / Peoples Assembly, this Assembly too can not be used since truthfulness of this Assembly  as well as all previous Assemblies is being doubted  by the interlocutors who have also recommended taking separatists into confidence.

And above all who will head  the interim J&K Government. It can not be the present Omar Abdullah lead NC ? Congress Government , It can not be Farooq Abdullah or Mufti Sayeed  ( as was got done by Delhi as regards Sheikh Abdullah) or Ghulam Nabi Azad or Mangat Ram Sharma  or  even Dr. Karan Singh  . It was the separatist pressure that forced Delhi  to appoint 5 Working Groups on J&K in 2007 and then the Interlocutors group of three. So,  IR report has been just a pass time.

6.  Making Article 370 Permanent and renaming it

The IR suggests that solution lies in making Article 370 permanent by deleting the word temporary from its description  and naming it Special Status article by amendment of Indian constitution. Report  also suggests  that after doing some work ( under 370 .1 & 370.3 )  Article 370 should not be operated. The question is in case it has to be not operated by President after some reversals are made then why to retain it as a special article permanently, what for ? , the Interlocutors are silent. Though the recommendations / views expressed are not worth taking notice hoping for a solution still  one could  ask :

i.                    Can article 370 be  so simply amended or modified by GOI ?,  Answer is no.

ii.                  Who will  recommend  / concur to the   President  ? In case we go by the  understanding of the Interlocutors   (who surely appear to be influenced / pre loaded with the  view points  of   the valley based  mainstream leaders / separatists ) this can be done by the Constituent Assembly of J&K and  if we go by the opinion of experts on “ J&K” there is no  assembly worth  the name of Constituent Assembly of J&K at present . Should a new Constituent Assembly be elected?

iii.                More over doing so is as good as abrogation of Article 370  even if its contents  are to be changed naming it is special provision / Status  Article . It will be as good as adding a new Article in Constitution of India by the Parliament and no any government can simply do it on its own.

iv.               Or in case it is  only named as special status article  and word temporary is to be deleted  but it has not to be operated  in future , then what is the purpose of retaining it . So the suggestions are un thoughtful.

7. Is not the Instrument of accession eroded by August 1952 Delhi Agreement ?

In case the indirect  inference drawn  by  Interlocutors is accepted that majority in J&K feel that article 370 has been eroded , then it could also be  said that  there has been undue sure erosion of the terms and contents of the Instrument of accession  (as was signed by Hari Singh ) through the signing of the 1952 Delhi Agreement   by two persons and acceptance of the same by Parliament of India .
i.         Nehru  Sheikh Delhi agreement  was done outside the instrument of accession and Maharaja Hari  Singh was not party to it.

ii.      The Dehli Agreement was first presented in parliament and thereafter it was presented in the J&K Constituent Assembly of J&K. , So, Sheikh Abdulla had signed an agreement with Nehru without the approval of the JK Constituent Assembly and there was no reference of the  Regent Karan Singh in that.

iii.    Even Sheikh’s cabinet had accused Sheikh Abdulla in august 1953 that Sheikh was not serious about the Delhi Accord, rather he intended to violate even this  “ agreement”.

So, it is quite evident that the interlocutors have  failed to study the J&K affairs with open mind  and appear to have  worked with mindset that was  totally carried with the choice and views of those who  have been working to keep J&K affairs disturbed in the name of Kashmir affairs.` Rather they had  pre set  concept / information base.

8.Report is not  drafted  with a sincere and free mind approach ?

The manner in which the Dileep Padgaonkar committee report  proceeds  it appears that they have not tried to even know the basic of the ex Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir.

i.                    They have called Pakistan Occupied areas of  J&K  as Pakistan Administered   parts of Kashmir / Jammu and Kashmir

ii.                  They have called Pakistan Occupied Area  displaced persons as Migrants  where as  per an order  of 1950 signed by  Sheikh Abdullah , the then Prime Minister of J&K , they were named as Displaced Persons.

iii.                 So strangely Dileep Padgaonkar report says that POK DPs (“Migrants”) do not have any rights as State Subjects of J&K  i.e they can not vote for J&K Assembly, they can not get J&K Government  Jobs, they can not get admission in J&K Government Professional Colleges . This conclusion is totally wrong. It is so surprising that the Interlocutor Committee that claims having toured J&K for one year, met  more than 700 delegations  has not been able to even understand the status of people  living in J&K.

iv.               Though they have  understood during their tours from Oct 2010 to September 2011 to different areas of J&K that  J&K State has vast geographical and socio political dimensions , still they have not been sincere to accept  the truths like  : that  Kashmir Valley is a small part of J&K State &  any voice  ( worth   attracting attention of outsiders) against local government /GOI as well as any separatist voice  against India Nation ( where ever it has been ) has primarily come only from the Kashmir valley ( Kashmir Region ) and no other areas over last 60 years .

v.                 Interlocutors appear to have not made  worth attempt to look at J&K  for fact finding  and appear to have worked under Kashmir Valley “phobia”. Had it not been so they would  have known through the informations locally available that even Muzaffarabad   ( no doubt Ladakh too) was part of the State of Maharaja Gulab Singh  before the British ceded  the Areas of Kashmir Valley to Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. So the report is no more than a hush up exercise and MOH too has thrown it in the open  without any workable note.

vi.        Interlocutors recommend that for solution, we must keep in mind strategic importance of J & K as regards  central Asia and South Asia.  They have  failed to learn that no part/ boundary of Kashmir Valley ( that was ceded to Gulab Singh by the British)  is bordering Afaganistan,  China, Russia,  and even Pakistan. When Sheikh Abdullah gave Quit Kashmir call in 1946 it indirectly referred to the 1946 Amritsar Treaty between the  British & the Maharaja Gulab Singh. As regards the trade links with Central Asia / South Asia , the link is through Indian Borders  and a local Indian Sate can not claim independent identity on such account. Similarly what is the problem  for conducting trade with the other world across Indian  borders  and such international trade is Central Subject and not State  subject. What Interlocutors  team  has tried to examine and propose  and in what context it is , is not understandable. If they mean J&K  ( Kashmir valley )  should be made a “State” out side India , then they should have  dared to openly say so and discussed the Self Rule Document of PDP (  PDP itself says  that it DOC does not suggest immediate and total solution)  in detail in the report .

9. Report reflects no different a mindset

No doubt over last more than six decades the approach of GOI and prime political parties of India has been such that it were only the leaders, view points  and questions that emerged from Kashmir valley ( just 10 % of the total area of J&K State )  were taken notice  and attended to. Going by the experience with earlier committees and commissions  nothing much different was expected from the  Group of Interlocutors. I was of the opinion that the end outcome would not be any more than the contents of the Report of  Man Mohan Singh’s 5th Working Group ( 2007 -2010) that was headed by a Retired Judge of Supreme court of India  but gave  a very incomplete report as regards its particular terms of reference ( center state relations) . Nothing fruitful came out of the  Saghir Ahmed Report  except that it gave some material to NC / PDP to advocate that the report went in their  Autonomy / Self Rule way but GOI did not implement. More confusions for innocent people of J&K and more tools for the separatist to  target India at the international level were hence provided. And the result would be no different in this case also. More confusions and more  impractical suggestions and inferences have come from team Dileep Padgaonkar. Going by the face of report I would not have discussed this report  but since such incomplete documents can otherwise be used by the trouble makers , the report is being discussed here.

Justice Saghir Ahmed who was a retired  supreme court judge had failed to examine and discuss the technicalities / constitutional aspects of J&K Assembly Autonomy Resolution  June 2000/ Greater Autonomy/ PDP Self Rule ( although PDP had loaded Self Rule Document on its website also in 2008 ). It appeared from the report that Justice Saghir ahmed not even read the Self Rule document that was also available on the net. As a Judge he was the best person to see the constitutional aspects of Autonomy Resolution 2000 and PDP Self Rule. He did not do so . GOI India should have asked  that  why the Justice did not do his job. But GOI did not even comment on that report , what to talk of rejecting the report and treating the exercise as  wastage of time and money 
.  No doubt this  did give an opportunity to NC/ PDP to say that GOI has not gone with the recommendations of 5th WG.  Confusions in the local minds grew, more wrong signals were sent to outside world as well. The summary  contents of the interlocutors report too are no different. The difference is that they have discussed the Self Rule features indirectly in some more detail  without caring that such suggestions did not fall with in the  purview of J&K being a State of Union of India .

Similarly Interlocutors report has been left  without  any comments for 7  months ( Oct 2011 to May 2012) by GOI inspite of it having so much of lacunae, incompleteness and wrong quotes and references that question  that question Indian intentions and rights as regards Indian State of J&K. Interlocutors report has  worked on the similar lines and talked on some sensitive issues that have more relevance from international point of view for India . But the discussions and suggestions have been made by Interlocutors  hypothetically and beyond constitutional dimensions .

It is quite evident from the report that the even team Dileep Padgaonkar has been carried with the one sided  viewpoints and demands cultivated  by the Kashmir Valley centric mainstream political leaderships and the anti India / separatist elements ( no doubt  improper & no timely  response from GOI over the years  as well looking J&K affairs as only Kashmir valley affairs has allowed  cultivation of wrong concepts  even in the minds of many Indian journalists, writers, opinion makers , political leaders, social and human right activists ). No doubt it was a unique experience for them to interact with J&K people outside Kashmir Valley and surely 12 month period was too less for them to do effective learning / understanding and come out of the information  about J&K affairs that they had so far believed in.

It was not only in pre 1947 days that  some Valley based leaders were carried by Congress and the British  as the only representative voice and sample of the people of J&K State and the Kashmir Valley  issues  ( 10 % area of J&K ) have been treated as the representative of J&K . affairs on communal lines. Even after 1947 accession the Delhi Leaders and  and the people of other Indian States  too have all these years got carried with the same Kashmir Valley Centric understanding. Pakistan has hence taken undue advantage of this  projecting J&K as a communal issue ( religion based ).

It was not only Jawaharlal Nehru  but also many other Indian leaders  from political parties other than Congress who carried on with such approach. Even BJP has been no  different to some extent. To India’s fair disadvantage many  social, religious, HR, academic study groups and Commissions  too have been  no different.  Some experts have even alleged that when any one visits J&K  for study on affairs , he / she is extended  pleasant hospitality by the Valley leaders  as well as the governments dominated by Valley centric  leaders / groups , and the visitor gets lost in the cob web of Valley Centric vision “ documents” / demands / inferences / historical notes  inspite of the fact that Kashmir Valley forms no more than 10% part of whole of J&K and Jammu Region is 170 % as large as Kashmir valley, what to talk of Ladakh region (  that includes large area of Gilgit Baltistan in Pakistan Occupied J&K as well as area of Ladakh region transgressed  by CHINA ). But no one has so far that pointedly referred to  the needs  ( outstanding since 1947 ) of the Pakistan Occupied areas of J&K  & the people from / of those  areas except Kashmir valley. Only passing references are made to the people outside Kashmir valley and this report is no different.

The Kashmir valley has also unduly influenced the wisdom of the Team Interlocutor  ( headed by  a renowned journalist in Dileep Padgaonkar ). It could be said with regrets that the interlocutors  inspite of spending enough time in J&K have not been able to make any effort to know  or do any extra effort  to know / see J&K outside the  arena so far known to them  and the pictures painted so far. The interlocutors appear to have been caught in the controversies and complications of J&K affairs . they have projected and inferred differently at different places for similar / same issues.

Without particularly naming the Self Rule DOCUMENT of PDP   the report  has touched some contents of PDP SR Doc and suggested that after the policies are approved at the India level then  for implementation of some issues the matter need be deliberated with Pakistan and Pakistan “ administered” Kashmir  government. What hesitation the interlocutors had in straightway referring to Self Rule  Doc of PDP need be asked. May they wanted to retain the good will of Kashmir valley as well as people of other Indian states by not discussing the affairs openly.

It could be inferred , even alleged  by some , that the interlocutors  are not at all concerned  about the welfare of the people of J&K , they were / are under the valley centric information bank and they wanted to lose the good will of no one , even the separatists ( who did not accept them as interlocutors worth the prevailing conditions and requirements of J&K affairs).

The interlocutors were not aware of even the basic points  J&K like  Pakistan Occupied areas of  J&K ( they call Pakistan Administered areas of J&K ), nomenclature used for people uprooted in 1947 from J&K areas  ( they wrongly call  Displaced persons as Migrants ),  their  wrongly saying that POK displaced persons do not have Voting right for JK Assembly elections as well as have no right to property in J&K. So, how could such people be considered worth making a view / suggestions on J&K affairs?

It is so surprising that inspite of all these lacunae / wrongs   and unfair references / suggestions   GOI / Ministry of Home Affairs GOI  was and is still carrying the interlocutors report to their CHEST.

YES   three truthful facts  so far mis represented , mis quoted do indirectly emerge from the Interlocutor’s report Oct 2011.

i.                    J&K does not have a special status as per Constitution of India

ii.                  Article 370 is not a Special status Article

iii.                There is vide disparity  in opinions / aspirations /demands  of the people of J&K. The people of Jammu Region and Ladakh region   allege that they have been unfairly / discriminately treated in comparison to  Kashmir valley. It is here that Interlocutors report indirectly accepts that J&K affairs are not just Kashmir Valley affairs and there are other much  larger areas / people in J&K.

iv.                Some more revealing facts would have been known to them  had they spent some more time with the people other than those from Kashmir valley shedding ( for the time ) the concepts they had carried so far.
  
The report shall not be implemented , rather it can not implemented . Rather report has created more of confusions /doubts  and the GOI / MOH should not have put the  report  in the  media.    Going by the face of report I would not have discussed this report  but since such incomplete documents can otherwise be used by the trouble makers , the report is being discussed here.

 10. May not the report does some damage than doing some good

As regards the people of J&K / GOI is concerned making the report  as drafted and the manner in which it has been made public would  socially do some harm and not good.

No action would be taken by Government of India on the vital issues concerning J&K turmoil and as contained in this report ( leave aside local unemployment , disparity , development , displaced persons , migrants, refugees ) since the issues that really concern and need be answered / attended to on time surely pertain to separatists ideologies  and  such like ancillary viewpoints that could be used for vote bank politics.

Since  there have been some references of the Nehru Sheikh 1952 Delhi Agreement   (of the time when J&K Constituent Assembly was already on its job   and any such agreement  would be a dictation to Constituent Assembly  ) and the PDP Self Rule Doc /  indirect  reference of its contents , the interlocutor report would surely provide some pointers to NC and PDP  to tell people that GOI is not implementing their demands. They may get some political advantage. But in the long run National Conference will be a loser in the process. Since so far NC has not directly or indirectly questioned the truthfulness of the 26th/27th  Oct  1947 Accession J&K with India and always named Pakistan as aggressor country  where as this report  suggests  some  actions to be taken that do not fit in the  spirit of !947 accession of J&K. So, the report if not disposed off / rejected by MOH and if kept in the shelf , would provide some  links to   separatists elements / those who question accession  thereby  making it  more difficult for NC  to fight the separatist ideologies  in Kashmir valley at the local political level maintaining its stand on the trueness of 1947 Accession and forcefully pursue the nationalistic  view points.

11. The report reflects personal mindsets of the team members

The report appears  to have nothing more  than the set mindset of 3 interlocutors who have rushed through completing their assignment   as was done  by Justice Saghir Ahmed  while drafting the report of 5th Working Group of the Prime Minister.

The Team claims having met 700 delegations and a few thousand people of 22 districts of J&K. But they have not quoted  the names of the persons and the suggestions made by people outside Kashmir Valley except making some reference of Sh. Balraj Puri and  Jatinder Bakshi whom they had met on their first visit first day itself. They do make reference of S. Teja Singh Ji who was  Secretary of the Autonomy Committee ( and he had to be referred). No separatists leader met them in Kashmir valley  but they still recommend to GOI to engage them in dialogue. Incase GOI has to engage them in dialogue , what can GOI do effectively on this report , is a question. They do say that the report is suggesting with in constitution of India but do  suggest some actions for taking that surely not fall with Constitution of Inda.

They have tried to include the names of some organizations and people from outside Kashmir valley  in their report but making no pointed reference to the informations and demands made by these groups / people. Do the interlocutors mean that people from outside Kashmir Valley had no worth information / suggestion to make as regards the J&K affairs from  national and international point of view ?  If they want to reflect so , it is surely wrong. Report has nothing as material subject to suggest to GOI other than what the Kashmir Valley leaders  or the Separatists  like ideologues agitate.  The interlocutors have used the names of persons / organizations from outside Kashmir valley just to give a face value to their  half done venture in J&K.

Since such incomplete documents can otherwise be used by the trouble makers , the report has been discussed here.