By Dr. Jitendra Singh
Another summer. Another season of tourists. Another impending influx of Amarnath pilgrims. Another month of official and semiofficial meetings as ministers, parliament members and bureaucrats alike seek to escape from the soaring heat of plains by managing excuse of a ‘‘business’’ in the Valley.
It is a familiar June in Kashmir...witnessed year after year for the last few years but this certainly not is a June of the pre-militancy era prior to the watershed year of 1989.
The nature's cycle continues to move with unfazed commitment enlivening the Vale of paradise with spring, summer and golden autumn year after year notwithstanding the din of gun shots or the smoke of unruly blasts. And, though the level of militancy has remarkably gone done during the last few years and enthusiastic tourists are seen in queues outside popular eat points, what one misses is an unguarded Shikara ride past midnight or the sight of one of your popular film stars casually shooting a romantic song on the Buleauvard. For, at the back of mind, everyone is always quietly conscious about the lurking possibility of a sudden cross-fire or an unforeseen shutdown over a sundry ‘‘Hartal’’ call.
It has been exactly 20 years since the first shot was fired to announce to the world that Kashmir, hitherto known for its peaceful demeanour and docile hospitality, had been taken over by militancy in the holy name of ‘‘Azaadi’’ or ‘‘liberty’’ or ‘‘realisation of genuine aspirations’’ or whatever you call it. Militancy and ‘‘Azaadi’’ fervour may have declined over the recent years but not enough to inspire a gala return of Bollywood or, for example, reopening of the HMT factory.
The above predicament owes an answer from the protagonists of Kashmir, whether they call themselves ‘‘separatists’’ or ‘‘non-separatists’’. These self-styled crusaders on the one hand feel flattered by Kashmiri youth like Faisal making it to the Indian Administrative Services (IAS) and are simultaneously not averse to Kashmiri youth accepting financial and moral patronage from Pakistan. This is a classical case of having the cake and eating to too by getting the better of both New Delhi as well as Islamabad.
While an ordinary Kashmiri youth continues to pay the price for this unsettled scenario without perhaps even realising what he is inadvertantly missing out, an ordinary tourist on a visit from outside finds everything magnificent about the natural splendour of Kashmir and yet finds something missing. Umapathy sums it up with a Faiz expression ‘‘.....Ajab Andaaz Mein Ab Ke Bahaar Guzri Hai !’’
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Only 2% from J&K prefer Pakistan ?
Only 2% from J&K prefer Pakistan ?
By DR. JITENDRA SINGH
A widely reported survey published last week reveals that only 2 percent of the people of Jammu and Kashmir want to be a part of Pakistan. But, the real question is: what do the rest of the 98 percent want ? The survey report only partly addresses this question even though one of the conclusions drawn by it is that ‘‘58 percent of Kashmiris are willing to accept the LoC as a permanent soft border’’.
Is it easy to infer that the 98 percent of people who do not want to go with Pakistan are necessarily in favour of staying with India ? Do they or a significant percentage of them want independence or ‘‘Azaadi’’? If so, is such an ‘‘Azaadi’’ possible to sustain without logistic support including financial and defence support from India ? About the 58 percent reportedly favouring to accept LoC as a permanent soft border, it is again not clear whether they are ready to be governed by the sovereign republic of India ?
In other words, the final conclusions of the survey continue to remain as ambiguous as the final opinions of the Kashmir based activists. For example, if you confront a Kashmir-centric protagonist or a Kashmir-centric intellectual with a straight question ‘‘what precisely is the solution to socalled Kashmir imbroglio ?’’ the answer is never going to be straight. Often, you are likely to hear either lofty philosophical platitudes like, for instance, ‘‘the genuine aspirations of the people of Kashmir ought to be addressed ’’ or you are likely to be suggested scholarly but vague formulae like, for instance, ‘‘independence short of Azaadi’’, ‘‘Azaadi short of Defence affairs’’, ‘‘Bhutan model etc., Even the socalled mainstream but Kashmir-centric political parties put forward self-righteous solutions like ‘‘autonomy’’ or ‘‘self-rule’’ which hold the prospect of their own continuance in power.
From time to time there has been evidence to believe that there is hardly any difference between Kashmir's separatist politician and Kashmir's non-separatist politician. They are two sides of the same coin and exchange roles depending on the expediency of situation or sometimes depending on who is in power and who is out of power. The most striking commonality among all of them is a relentless endeavour to simultaneously blackmail both New Delhi as well as Islamabad while at the same time consciously nursing their respective populist agenda. None of them is honest to the state of a common Kashmiri and all of them know very well in their heart of hearts that nothing is going to change with relation to Jammu and Kashmir atleast in foreseeable future and therefore they can continue playing their games to hoodwink India and Pakistan on the one hand and a common Kashmiri on the other hand.
Meanwhile, the common man in Kashmir continues to be taken for a ride and his misery continues to be compounded by addition of further confusion to it. At the end of the day, the common man is so puzzled that he is unable to offer a clear solution to the socalled Kashmir problem if at all there exists a Kashmir problem while his self-proclaimed saviours consume him by inches only to invite Umapathy's poetic refrain ‘‘Aaj Deewar Kha Gayi Saaya....Aaj Maine Yeh Vaakya Dekha !’’
By DR. JITENDRA SINGH
A widely reported survey published last week reveals that only 2 percent of the people of Jammu and Kashmir want to be a part of Pakistan. But, the real question is: what do the rest of the 98 percent want ? The survey report only partly addresses this question even though one of the conclusions drawn by it is that ‘‘58 percent of Kashmiris are willing to accept the LoC as a permanent soft border’’.
Is it easy to infer that the 98 percent of people who do not want to go with Pakistan are necessarily in favour of staying with India ? Do they or a significant percentage of them want independence or ‘‘Azaadi’’? If so, is such an ‘‘Azaadi’’ possible to sustain without logistic support including financial and defence support from India ? About the 58 percent reportedly favouring to accept LoC as a permanent soft border, it is again not clear whether they are ready to be governed by the sovereign republic of India ?
In other words, the final conclusions of the survey continue to remain as ambiguous as the final opinions of the Kashmir based activists. For example, if you confront a Kashmir-centric protagonist or a Kashmir-centric intellectual with a straight question ‘‘what precisely is the solution to socalled Kashmir imbroglio ?’’ the answer is never going to be straight. Often, you are likely to hear either lofty philosophical platitudes like, for instance, ‘‘the genuine aspirations of the people of Kashmir ought to be addressed ’’ or you are likely to be suggested scholarly but vague formulae like, for instance, ‘‘independence short of Azaadi’’, ‘‘Azaadi short of Defence affairs’’, ‘‘Bhutan model etc., Even the socalled mainstream but Kashmir-centric political parties put forward self-righteous solutions like ‘‘autonomy’’ or ‘‘self-rule’’ which hold the prospect of their own continuance in power.
From time to time there has been evidence to believe that there is hardly any difference between Kashmir's separatist politician and Kashmir's non-separatist politician. They are two sides of the same coin and exchange roles depending on the expediency of situation or sometimes depending on who is in power and who is out of power. The most striking commonality among all of them is a relentless endeavour to simultaneously blackmail both New Delhi as well as Islamabad while at the same time consciously nursing their respective populist agenda. None of them is honest to the state of a common Kashmiri and all of them know very well in their heart of hearts that nothing is going to change with relation to Jammu and Kashmir atleast in foreseeable future and therefore they can continue playing their games to hoodwink India and Pakistan on the one hand and a common Kashmiri on the other hand.
Meanwhile, the common man in Kashmir continues to be taken for a ride and his misery continues to be compounded by addition of further confusion to it. At the end of the day, the common man is so puzzled that he is unable to offer a clear solution to the socalled Kashmir problem if at all there exists a Kashmir problem while his self-proclaimed saviours consume him by inches only to invite Umapathy's poetic refrain ‘‘Aaj Deewar Kha Gayi Saaya....Aaj Maine Yeh Vaakya Dekha !’’
Letter to Mr. Rajiv Gandhi by Jagmohan.....
April 21, 1990
Dear Shri Rajiv Gandhi,
You have virtually forced me to write this open letter to you. For, all along, I have persistently tried to keep myself away from party politics and to use whatever little talent and energy I might have to do some creative and constructive work, as was done recently in regard to the management and improvement of Mata Vaishno Devi shrine complex and to help in bringing about a sort of cultural renaissance without which our fast decaying institutions cannot be nursed back to health. At the moment, the nobler purposes of these institutions, be they in the sphere of executive, legislature or judiciary etc. have been sapped and the soul of justice and truth sucked out of them by the politics of expediency.
You and your friends like Dr. Farooq Abdullah are, however, bent upon painting a false picture before the nation in regard to Kashmir. Your senior party men like Shiv Shankar and N.K.P. Salve have, apparently at your behest, been using the forum of the Parliament for building an atmosphere of prejudice against me. The former raked up a fourteen-year old incident of Turkman Gate and the latter a press interview an interview that I never gave to hurl a barrage of accusations of communalism against my person. Mani Shankar Iyer, too, has been dipping his poisonous darts in the columns of some magazines. I, however, chose to suffer in silence all the slings and arrows of this outrageous armoury of disinformations. Only rarely did I try to correct gross distortions by sending letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines. My intention was to remain content with a book, an academic and historic venture which, I believed, I owed to the nation and to history.
But the other day some friends showed to me press clippings of your comments in the election meetings in Rajasthan.
That, I thought, was the limit. I realised that, unless I checked your intentional distortions, you would spread false impression about me throughout the country during the course of your election campaign.
WARNING SIGNALS: Need I remind you that from the beginning of 1988, I had started sending "Warning Signals" to you about the gathering storm in Kashmir ? But you and the power wielders around you had neither the time, nor the inclination, nor the vision, to see these signals. They were so clear, so pointed, that to ignore them was to commit sins of true historical proportions.
To recapitulate and to serve as illustrations, I would refer to a few of these signals. In August 1988, after analysing the current and undercurrents, I had summed up the position thus: "The drum-beater of parochialism and fundamentalism are working overtime. Subversion is on the increase. The shadows of events from across the border are lengthening. Lethal weapons have come in. More may be on the way". In April 1989, I had desperately pleaded for immediate action I said: "The situation is fast deteriorating. It has almost reached a point of no return. For the last five days, there have been large-scale violence, arson, firing, hartals, casualties and what not. Things have truly fallen apart. Talking of the Irish crisis, British Prime Minister Disraeli had said: "It is potatoes one day and Pope the next". Similar is the present position in Kashmir. Yesterday, it was Maqbool Bhat; today it is Satanic Verses; Tomorrow it will be repression day and the day after it will be something else. The Chief Minister stands isolated. He has already fallen-politically as well as administratively; perhaps, only constitutional rites remain to be performed. His clutches are too soiled and rickety to support him. Personal aberrations have also eroded his public standing. The situation calls for effective intervention. Today may be timely, tomorrow may be too late". Again, in May, I expressed my growing anxiety: 'What is still more worrying is that every victory of subversionists is swelling their ranks, and the animosity is being diverted against the central authorities". But you chose not to do anything. Your inaction was mistifying. Equally mistifying was your reaction to my appointment for the second term. How could I suddenly become cammunal, anti-muslim and what not ?
When I resigned in July 1989, there was no rancour. You wanted me to fight, as your party candidate, election for the South Delhi Lok Sabha seat. Since I had general revolusion for the type of politics which out country had, by and large, come to breed, I declined the offer. If you had any serious reservation about my accepting the offer of J and K Governorship for the second term, you could have adopted the straight forward course and apprised me of your views. I would have thought twice before going into a situation which had virtually reached a point of no return. There would have been no need for you to resort to false accusations.
May be you do not consider truth and consistency as virtues. May be you believe that the words inscribed on our national emblem - Satyameva Jayate - are mere words without meaning and significance for motivating the nation to proceed in the right direction and build a true and just India by true and just means. Perhaps power is all that matters to you - power by whichever means and at whatever cost.
REALITY: In regard to the conditions prevailing before and after my arrival on the scene, you and your collaborators have been perverting reality. The truth is that before the imposition of Governor's rule on January 19, 1990, there was a total mental surrender. Even prior to the day (December 8, 1989) of Dr. Rubaiye Sayeed's kidnapping, when the eagle of terrorism swooped the state with full fury, 1600 violent incidents, including 351 bomb blasts had taken place in eleven months. Then between January 1 and January 19, 1990, there were as many as 319 violent acts - 21 armed attacks, 114 bomb blasts, 112 arsons, and 72 incidents of mob violence.
You, perhaps, never cared to know that all the components of the power structure had been virtually taken over by the subversives. For example, when Shabir Ahmed Shah was arrested in September 1989, on the Intelligence Bureau's tip- off, Srinagar Deputy Commissioner flatly refused to sign the warrant of detention. Anantnag Deputy Commissioner adopted the same attitude. The Advocate-General did not appear before the Court to represent the state case. He tried to pass on the responsibility to the Additional Advocate General and the Government council. They, too, did not appear.
Do you not remember what happened on the day of Lok Sabha poll in November 22, 1989 ? In a translating gesture, TV sets were placed near some of the polling booths with placards reading "anyone who will cast his vote will get this". No one in the administration of Dr. Farooq Abdullah took any step to remove such symbols of defiance if authority.
Let me remind you that Sopore is the hometown of Gulam Rasool Kar, who was at that time a Cabinet Minister in the State Government. It is also the hometown of the Chairman of the Legislative Council, Habibullah, and also of the former National Conference MP and Cabinet Minister, Abdul Shah Vakil. Yet only five votes were cast in Sopore town. In Pattan, an area supposedly under the influence of Iftikar Hussain Ansari, the then Congress (I) Minister, not a single vote was cast. Such was the commitment and standing of your leaders and collaborators in the State.
And you still thought that subversion and terrorism could be fought with such political and administrative intruments.
Around that point of time, when the police set-up was getting rapidly demoralised, when intelligence was fast drying up, when inflitration in services was bringing stories of subversives plan like TOPAC, your protage, Dr. Farooq Abdullah was either going abroad or releasing 70, hardcore and highly motivated torrosists who were trained in the handling of dangerous weapons, who had contacts at the highest level in Pakistan occupied Kashmir, who knew all the devious routes of going to and returning from Pakistan and whose detention had been approved by the three member advisory board presided over by the Chief Justice. Their simultaneous release enabled them to occupy key positions in the network of subversion and terrorism and to complete the chain which took them again to Pakistan to bring arms to indulge in killings and kidnappings and other acts of terrorism. For example, one of the released persons, Mohd. Daud Khan of Ganderbal, became the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of a terrorist outfit, Al-Bakar, and took a leading part in organising a force of 2,500 Kashmiri Youths. Who is to be blamed for all the heinous crimes subsequet}y committed by these released 70 terrorists ? I would leave this question answered by the people to whom you are talking about the "Jagmohan Factor".
The truth, supported by preponderence of evidence, is that before January 19, 1990, the terrorist had become the real ruler. The ground had been yielded to him to such an extent that dominated the public mind. He could virtually swim like a fish in the sea. Would it matter if the sea was subsequently surrounded ?
LABELLING ANTI-MUSLIM: In your attempt to hide all your sins of omission and commission in Kashmir and as a part of your small politics which can not go beyond dividing people and creating vote banks, you took special pains to demolish all regards and respects which the Kashmiri masses, including the Muslim youth, had developed for me during my first term from April 26,1984, to July 12,1989. Against all facts, unassailable evidence, and your own precious pronouncements, you started me labelling me as anti-Muslim.
May I, in this connection, also invite your attention to three of the important suggestions made in my book, Rebuild- ing Shahjahanabad: The Walled City of Delhi. One pertained to the creation of the green velvet between Jama Masjid and Red Fort; the second to the construction of a road linking Parliament House with the Jama Masjid complex, and the third to the setting up of a second Shahajhanabad in the Mata Sundari road-Minto road complex, reflecting the synthetic culture of the city, its traditional as well as its modern texture. Could such suggestions I ask you, come of an anti-Muslim mind ?
FORUM OF PARLIAMENT: How you and your associates use the fonum of Parliament undermine my standing amongst the Kashmiri Muslims, was evident from what N.KP. Salve, MP ?, did in the Rajya Sabha on May 25, 1990.
Referring to the so called interview to the Bombay Weekly, THE CURRENT - an interview which I never gave - Salve chose wholly unjustified expressions; "There was a patent and palpable attitude if very disconcerting communal bias and, therefore, he (Governor) was happy under the garb of eliminating the terrorist, the saboteurs and the culprits, in eliminating the whole community as it were; now the Governor has himself given profuse and unabashed vent to his malicious malignity, hate and extreme dislike, branding every member of a particular community as a militant".
I know Salve. I do not think, if left to himself, he would have done what he did. Clearly, he was goaded to say something which was against his training and background. But the elementary precaution which any jurist, at least a jurist of Salve's imminence, would have taken, was to first check up whether any such interview weekly had been given by me, and if so, whether the remarks attributed to me were actually made. The unseemly haste was itself revealing. The issue was raised on May 25, while the weekly was dated May 26 June 2, 1990. You yourself rushed a let to the President on May 25, on the basis ofthe interview that in reality did not exist. You explained that V.P. Singh had appointed a person with "Rabid Communalist Opinion as Governor. You also got your letter widely published on May 25 itself.
Since your party men did not allow me to have my say in the Rajya Sabha, even when an opportunity came my way to speak on the subject, I was left with no other option but to file a 20 Lakhs damage suit against the Current Weekly in the Delhi High Court. The case may take a long time and I may donate the damages, if and when awarded, to charity, but I intend sparing no effort to expose all those who have played dirty roles in the disinformation-drama.
ARTICLE-370: You created a scene on March 7, 1990, at the time of the visit of the All Party Committee to Srinagar, and made it a point to convey to the people in 1986 I wanted to have Article 370 abrogated. At that critical juncture, when I was fighting the forces of terrorism with my back to the wall beginning to turn the corner after frustrating the sinister designs of the subversives from January 26, 1990 onwards, you thought it appropriate to cause hostility against me by tearing the facts out of context. Whether this act of yours was responsible or irresponsible, I would leave to the nation to decide.
What I had really pointed out in August-September 1986 was: 'Article 370 is nothing but a breeding ground for the parasites at the heart of the paradise. It skins the poor. It deceives them with its mirage. It lines the pockets of the "power elites". It fans the ego of the new sultans, in essence, it creates a land without justice, a land full of crudities and contradictions. It props up politics of deception, duplicity and demagogy. It breeds the microbes of subversion. It keeps alive the unwholesome legacy of the two-nation theory. It sufficates the very idea of India and fogs the very vision of a great social and cultural crucible from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. It could be an epicentre of a violent earth-quake, the tremors of which would be felt all over the country with unforeseen consequences.
I had argued, 'The fundamental aspect which has been lost sight of in the controversy for deletion or retention of Article 370 is its misues. Over the years, it has become an instrument of exploitation in the hands of the ruling political elites and other vested interests in bureaucracy, business, judiciary and bar. Apart from the politicians, the richer classes have found it aonvenient to amass wealth and not allow healthy financial legislation to come to the State. The provisions of the Wealth Tax, the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Gift Tax etc, and other beneficial laws of the Union have not been allowed to be operated in the State under the cover of Article 370. The common people are prevented from realising that Article 370 is actually keeping them impoverished and denying them justice and also their due share in the economic advancement.'
My stand was that the poor people of Kashmir had been exploited under the protective wall of Article 370 and that the correct position needed to be explained to them. I had made a number of suggestions in this regard and also in regard to the reform and reorganisation of the institutional framework. But all these were ignored. A great opportunity was missed.
Subsequent events have reinforced my views that Article 370 and its by product, the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir must go, not only because it is legally and constitutionally feasible to do so, but also because larger and more basic considerations of our past history and contemporary life require it. The Article merely facilitates the growth and continuation of corrupt oligarchies. It puts false notions in the minds of the youth. It gives rise to regional tensions and conflicts and even the autonomy assumed to be available is not attainable in practice. The distinct personality and cultural identity of Kashmir can be safeguarded without this Article. It is socially regressive and causes situations in which women lose thier right if they marry non-State subjects and persons staying for over 44 years in the State are denied elementary human and democratic rights. And, above all, it does not fit into the reality and requirement of India and its vast and varied span. What India needs today is not petty sovereignties that would sap its spirit and aspirations and turn it into small "banana-republics" in the hands of 'tin-pot dictators', but a new social, political and cultural crucible in which values of truth and rectitude, of fairness and justice, and of compassion and catholicity, are melted, purified and moulded into a vigorous and vibrant set- up which provides real freedom, real democracy and real resurgence to all.
I must also point out that when other States in the Union ask for greater autonomy, they do not mean separation of identities. They really want decentralisation and devolution of power, so that administrative and development work is done speedily and the quality of service to the people improves. In Kashmir, the demand for retaining Article 370 with all its 'pristine purity', that is, without the alleged dilution that has taken place since 1953, stems from different motivation. It emanates from a clever strategy to remain away from the mainstream, to set up a separate fiefdom, to fly a separate flag, to have a Prime Minister rather than a Chief Minister, and Sadr-i-Riyasat instead of a Governor, and to secure greater power and patronage, not for the good of the masses, not for serving the cause of peace and progress or for attaining unity amidst diversity, but for serving the interests of 'new elites', the 'new Sheikhs'.
All those aspiring to be the custadians of the vote-banks continue to say that Article 370 is a matter of faith. But they do not proceed further. They do not ask themselves: What does this faith mean? What is its rationale ? Would not bringing the State within the full framework of Indian Constitution give brighter lustre and sharper teeth to this faith and make it more just and meaningful ?
In a similar strain, expressions like 'historical necessity' and 'autonomy' are talked about. What do these mean in practice ? Does historical necessity mean that you include, on paper, Kashmir in the Indian Union by one hand at a huge cost and give it back, in practice, by another hand on the golden platter ? And what does autonomy or so called pre-1953 or pre- 1947 position imply ? Would it not amount to the Kashmiri leadership say in: 'you will send and I will spend; you will have no say even if I build a corrupt and callous oligarchy and cause a situation in which Damocles' sword of secession could be kept hanging on your head' ?
KASHMIRI PANDITS: You and the like of you have made India a country which has lost capacity to be true and just. Anyone trying to be fair is dubbed communal. The case of the Kashmiri Pandits bears eloquent testimony to this fact.
Whatever be the vicissitudes of the Kashmiri Pandits' history and whatever unkind quirks their fate might have brought to them in the past, these all pale into insigficance in companison to what is happening to them at present. The grim tragedy is compounded by the equally grim irony that one of the most intelligent subtle, versatile, and proud community of the country is being virtually reduced to extinction in free India. It is suffering not under the fanatic zeal of mediaeval Sultans like Sikander or under the tyrannical regime of Afghan Governors, but under the supposedly secular rule of leaders like you, V.P. Singh and others who unabashed search for personal and political power is symbolised by calculated disregard of the Kashmiri migrants' current miserable plight and the terrible future that stares in their eyes. And to fill their cup of pain and anguish, there are bodies like 'Committee for Initiative on Kashmir' which are over-anxious and over active to rub salt into their wounds, and to label anyone who wants to stand by them in their hour of distress as communal.
In a soft, superficial, permissive and, in many ways, cruel India which has the tragic distinction of creating over one lakh refugees from its own flesh and blood and then casting them aside like masterless cattle to fend for themselves on the busy and heartless avenues of soulless cities, chances for Kashmiri Pandits to survive as a distinct community are next to nothing. Split, scattered and deserted practically by all, they stand today all alone, looking hopelessly at a leaking, rudderless, boat at their feat and extremely rough and tumultuous sea to face before they can reach a safe shore across to plant their feet firmly on an assured future.
The deep crisis through which the Kashmiri migrants, or for that matter, the entire Kashmir, is passing is really the crisis of Indian values - the perversion, in practice, of its constitutional, political, social and moral norms. If I visited the camps of the refugees and tried to extend the firm hand of justice to a community in pain, if I instructed that, instead of cash doles, the migrant Government servants should be given leave salary, and if I conceded the demand of a widow of the person brutally killed by a terrorist, for allotment of a house on payment, I became communal, a known anti-Muslim, about whom concoted stories were planted in the press. If, on the other hand, someone falsely accused the Indian Army and the Governor's administration, if he assailed Jagmohan in particular, of giving inducements through provisions of plots and trucks, without giving particulars either of plots or of trucks, his accusations got published all over the press, his reports were flaunted in national and international forums and were copiously quoted in Parliament by the members of your party and he was labelled as secular and progressive and champion of human rights and what not. Hard Evidence about 'Jagmohan Factor'. I do not like to refer to anything that looks like indulging in self-praise. But not to let you get away with your calculated campaign of disinformation, about Jagmohan communal factor, I must invite attention to some hard evidence about what the people of the Valley actually thought about me before you and your proteges started the smear campaign on my appointment for the second term.
Your principal prop of current politics of Kashmir, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, was not to be left behind in the drive launched to create an 'anti-Muslim' image of mine. In his interview published in the Times of India of August 30, 1990, he said, "A known anti-Muslim was appointed as Governor of a Muslim majority state". How untrue, how unfair, was the propaganda, should be obvious from the fact that on November 7, 1986, at the time of his swearing-in-ceremony, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, in a public speech for which the records exist, said: "Governor Sahib, we should need you very badly. It is, indeed, amazing that such remarkable work could be done by you in a short time through an imbecile and faction-ridden bureaucracy. If today three ballot boxes are kept - one for the National Conference, one for the Congress and one for you, your ballot box would be full while the other two ballot boxes would be empty".
The misfortune of our country is that we have leaders like Dr. Farooq Abdullah who have no regard for facts or truth and whose superficiality is matched only by their unprincipled politics.
Incidentally, did it not strike you that Dr. Farooq was virtually accusing your late mother of being anti-Muslim because she was the Prime Minister when, in April 1984, a 'known anti-Muslims' was appointed for the first term, as 'Governor of a Muslim majority State" ?
Apparently in consultation with you, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, on February 15, 1990, issued a written statement to the press in Urdu in which he inter alia, said, "The Governor, in the personification of 'Hallaqu' and 'Changez Khan', is bent upon converting the valley into a vast graveyard. On account of continuous curfew since January 20, it is difficult to say how many hundreds of people have become victim of the bullets of the army and paramilitary forces, and in this general slaughter how many hundreds of houses have been destroyed. At this moment, when Kashmiris are witnessing their beloved country being converted into a vast graveyard. I appeal to the national and international upholders of humanity to intervene in Kashmir and have an internatianal inquiry made into the general slaughter of Kashmiris at the hands of army and paramilitary forces".
Here is your 'patriot' calling Kashmir "Aziz Wattan", suggesting a separate country. Here is your 'national leader' asking for an international inquiry into the general slaughter of the Kashmiris by the Indian Army and paramilitary forces. Here is your 'responsible friend' speaking about the continuous curfew for 25 days in the valley and his consequent inability to find out many 'hundreds of innocent and unarmed Kashmiris' had been massacred and how many hundreds of Kashmiri houses razed to the ground, although he knew perfectly well that there had been a number of days when there was no day- curfew, partially or wholly, and the authorities had brought out the list of casualties, about 40 upto February 16, and were daily asking the public to provide with the additional names, if they had any, so that correction in the official list could be made. Here is an erstwhile Chief Minister who did not care to explain how 'innocent and unarmed' people were ruthlessly shooting down IAF officers, BSF jawans, senior officers of the Television and Telecommunications Department and young men in the streets; and how, while inciting people through lengthy and fiery statements, he did not find a single word to condemn such brutal murders.
Is the nation not entitled to know why you have not disowned such unfortunate behaviour on the part of Dr. Farooq Abdullah? And how do you account for his recent statement as published in The Times of India of February 7, 1991: 'I directed my partymen to lie low, go across the border, get training in arms handling; do anything but not get caught by Jagmohan' ?
Stabbing me in the back at personal level, perhaps, did not matter. But by keeping the pot boiling, you your proteges prolonged the agony of Kashmir and caused many more deaths and much more destruction. The politics of unscrupulousness was brought to its lowest depth.
ROOTS: You once said, 'I do not read history; I make history'. Apparently, you do not know that those who happen to make history without reading it, usually make bad history. They cannot understand the undercurrents and the fundamental forces that really shape the course of events and determine the ultimate destiny of a nation.
In the absence of historical perspective, you and the like of you never perceived the roots and tendrils which gave rise to the current crop of separatism and subversion in Kashmir. Poisonous seeds were persistently planted in the Kashmir psyche. And these were liberally fertilised. Those of you whose obligation it was to stop these plantations and their fertilisation, were not aware of even the elementary lesson of history; to compromise with the evil was only to rear greater evil; to ignore the inconvenient reality was only to compound it; to bow before the bully was only to invite the butcher the next day.
I could cite scores of cases to support my contention. Here I would restrict myself to only two examples.
Softness and Surrender. On October 2, 1988, Mahatma Gandhi's birthday his statue was to be installed in the new High Court complex at Srinagar. The function had been announced. The Chief Justice of India, R.S. Pathak, was to do the formal installation. But a few Muslim lawyers objected. They threatened to cause disturbance at the time of the function. The Chief Minister gave in, almost willingly, to the bullying tactics. The function was cancelled.
What are the implications of what happened ? A secular Kashmir, part of a secular India, could not have, even in its highest seat of justice, a statue of the Father of the Nation, of a sage, who laid down his life for communal harmony. Who was the person spearheading the move against the installation ? It was none other than Mohd. Shafi Bhat, an advocate of the J and K High Court and an active number of the National Conference, who was later on given party ticket for Srinagar Lok Sabha seat in the elections held in November 1989 and with whom you kept warm company during your visit to Srinagar on March 7, 1990, to create as many difficulties as possible for Governor's administration.
At that time there was National Conference (F) Congress (I) Ministry in office. Such was its lack of adherence to principles, such was the character of Congressmen who formed part of the Ministry and such was its disposition to cling to power that not even a little finger was raised when the function was cancelled.
The bully's appetite could not have been whetted better. Intimidation could not have secured better results. The troublemakers could not have perceived a more casual and non- committed adversary. Was it not natural for them to nurture higher ambitions and think that more spectacular results could be achieved by deploying a more aggressive and threatening strategy ? Only a naive would believe that in the context of the Kashmir situation, softness and surrender on basic principles would not act as an invitation to terrorism and militancy.
The Union Government enacted the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. It was made applicable to all the States of the Union except J and K. Because of Article 370, concurrence of the State Government was needed for extension of this law to the State. But the same was not given. Why ? Because J and K is different what an argument for having a law which aimed at eradication of misuse of religious premises for political purposes.
Nowhere was this law needed more than in the State of J and K. Nowhere were religious places misused more than here. Nowhere were seeds of fanaticism and fundamentalism sown every Friday more assiduoulsy than from the pulpits of the mosques here. Nowhere was it preached more regularly than here that Indian democracy was un-Islamic, Indian secularism was un-Islamic and Indian socialism was un-Islamic. And yet, neither the State Government which was ruled by two supposedly secular parties, nor the Union Government took the matter seriously. What intrigued the most was that the law which was considered good for 100 million Muslims in other parts of India, was not considered good for 40 lakh Muslims of Kashmir.
What was the use of the nationalist forces ruling the country when they would not act in national interest at all, when they remained mental slaves of the politics of communalism; when they were inclined to place reliance on words and not on deeds; when they did not lead, but succumbed; when they encouraged, and not defeated, separatist elements; when, instead of building a new society strong in human and spiritual values, they did everything, wittingly or unwittingly, to repair, renovate and strengthen the old decaying and smelly sitadel of obscurantism; and when they invariably gave precedence to expediency over the basic goals and principles of our Constitution ? What could be the result of all this ? Did it require any unusual insight to understand where such fipurious forces would take us ?
I leave it to the well-wishers of the nation to consider, without any political or personal bias, a basic question. How was it that Dr. Farooq was calling me Hallaqu and Changez Khan, and you were travelling all the way to Srinagar to 'expose' me as anti-Article 370, anti-Kashmiri and anti-Muslim and, at the same time, Miss Benazir Bhutto was vowing to tear me to pieces - 'Jagmohan ko Bhag-Bhag Mohan Kar Denge' ?
There are many other facets of Kashmir's truth which lie buried underneath the heaps of disinformation and also of superficiality and shallowness. These days I am busy in an attempt to remove some of these heaps. One day, I hope, the country will acquire the true perspective of the problem. The Kashmiri masses would also realise that I was their greatest well-wisher. I wanted to save them permanently from the exploitative oligarches and also from the machinations of religious 'Czars' and forces of obscurantism.
You have already committed the sin of letting down the Bharat Mata in Kashmir. Now do not add to it another sin of letting down the other Mata also. There is, after all, some power above. Conscious of her. She may condone your negligence. But she would not condone your sin of blaming an innocent person for what were your own faults, particularly when he had been persistently reminding you of your obligations.
So far as I am concerned, I am content with my gloomy pride of having done the correct thing in Kashmir. True, I seemingly and, perhaps, temporarily, lost the goodwill of some of the locals. But I was not seeking a certificate from anyone. I had gone for the second term to do a national duty.
The country's polity and administration have assumed such a character that it has become incapable of solving from its roots, any serious problem. Elections have virtually lost all meaning. And these would continue to be meaningless until and unless Indian democracy and its constitutional structure acquires a healthy cultural base, a pure soul and soil, from which the seed of justice, truth and selfless service could sprout and blossom into a Great Tree providing shade and shelter from Kanyakumari to Kashmir. Currently, the inner light is gone, and we are being led virtually by blind men with lanterns in their hands. We stumble from one crisis to another. As a poet says:
It has happened
and it goes on happening
and it will happen again.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Jagmohan
Dear Shri Rajiv Gandhi,
You have virtually forced me to write this open letter to you. For, all along, I have persistently tried to keep myself away from party politics and to use whatever little talent and energy I might have to do some creative and constructive work, as was done recently in regard to the management and improvement of Mata Vaishno Devi shrine complex and to help in bringing about a sort of cultural renaissance without which our fast decaying institutions cannot be nursed back to health. At the moment, the nobler purposes of these institutions, be they in the sphere of executive, legislature or judiciary etc. have been sapped and the soul of justice and truth sucked out of them by the politics of expediency.
You and your friends like Dr. Farooq Abdullah are, however, bent upon painting a false picture before the nation in regard to Kashmir. Your senior party men like Shiv Shankar and N.K.P. Salve have, apparently at your behest, been using the forum of the Parliament for building an atmosphere of prejudice against me. The former raked up a fourteen-year old incident of Turkman Gate and the latter a press interview an interview that I never gave to hurl a barrage of accusations of communalism against my person. Mani Shankar Iyer, too, has been dipping his poisonous darts in the columns of some magazines. I, however, chose to suffer in silence all the slings and arrows of this outrageous armoury of disinformations. Only rarely did I try to correct gross distortions by sending letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines. My intention was to remain content with a book, an academic and historic venture which, I believed, I owed to the nation and to history.
But the other day some friends showed to me press clippings of your comments in the election meetings in Rajasthan.
That, I thought, was the limit. I realised that, unless I checked your intentional distortions, you would spread false impression about me throughout the country during the course of your election campaign.
WARNING SIGNALS: Need I remind you that from the beginning of 1988, I had started sending "Warning Signals" to you about the gathering storm in Kashmir ? But you and the power wielders around you had neither the time, nor the inclination, nor the vision, to see these signals. They were so clear, so pointed, that to ignore them was to commit sins of true historical proportions.
To recapitulate and to serve as illustrations, I would refer to a few of these signals. In August 1988, after analysing the current and undercurrents, I had summed up the position thus: "The drum-beater of parochialism and fundamentalism are working overtime. Subversion is on the increase. The shadows of events from across the border are lengthening. Lethal weapons have come in. More may be on the way". In April 1989, I had desperately pleaded for immediate action I said: "The situation is fast deteriorating. It has almost reached a point of no return. For the last five days, there have been large-scale violence, arson, firing, hartals, casualties and what not. Things have truly fallen apart. Talking of the Irish crisis, British Prime Minister Disraeli had said: "It is potatoes one day and Pope the next". Similar is the present position in Kashmir. Yesterday, it was Maqbool Bhat; today it is Satanic Verses; Tomorrow it will be repression day and the day after it will be something else. The Chief Minister stands isolated. He has already fallen-politically as well as administratively; perhaps, only constitutional rites remain to be performed. His clutches are too soiled and rickety to support him. Personal aberrations have also eroded his public standing. The situation calls for effective intervention. Today may be timely, tomorrow may be too late". Again, in May, I expressed my growing anxiety: 'What is still more worrying is that every victory of subversionists is swelling their ranks, and the animosity is being diverted against the central authorities". But you chose not to do anything. Your inaction was mistifying. Equally mistifying was your reaction to my appointment for the second term. How could I suddenly become cammunal, anti-muslim and what not ?
When I resigned in July 1989, there was no rancour. You wanted me to fight, as your party candidate, election for the South Delhi Lok Sabha seat. Since I had general revolusion for the type of politics which out country had, by and large, come to breed, I declined the offer. If you had any serious reservation about my accepting the offer of J and K Governorship for the second term, you could have adopted the straight forward course and apprised me of your views. I would have thought twice before going into a situation which had virtually reached a point of no return. There would have been no need for you to resort to false accusations.
May be you do not consider truth and consistency as virtues. May be you believe that the words inscribed on our national emblem - Satyameva Jayate - are mere words without meaning and significance for motivating the nation to proceed in the right direction and build a true and just India by true and just means. Perhaps power is all that matters to you - power by whichever means and at whatever cost.
REALITY: In regard to the conditions prevailing before and after my arrival on the scene, you and your collaborators have been perverting reality. The truth is that before the imposition of Governor's rule on January 19, 1990, there was a total mental surrender. Even prior to the day (December 8, 1989) of Dr. Rubaiye Sayeed's kidnapping, when the eagle of terrorism swooped the state with full fury, 1600 violent incidents, including 351 bomb blasts had taken place in eleven months. Then between January 1 and January 19, 1990, there were as many as 319 violent acts - 21 armed attacks, 114 bomb blasts, 112 arsons, and 72 incidents of mob violence.
You, perhaps, never cared to know that all the components of the power structure had been virtually taken over by the subversives. For example, when Shabir Ahmed Shah was arrested in September 1989, on the Intelligence Bureau's tip- off, Srinagar Deputy Commissioner flatly refused to sign the warrant of detention. Anantnag Deputy Commissioner adopted the same attitude. The Advocate-General did not appear before the Court to represent the state case. He tried to pass on the responsibility to the Additional Advocate General and the Government council. They, too, did not appear.
Do you not remember what happened on the day of Lok Sabha poll in November 22, 1989 ? In a translating gesture, TV sets were placed near some of the polling booths with placards reading "anyone who will cast his vote will get this". No one in the administration of Dr. Farooq Abdullah took any step to remove such symbols of defiance if authority.
Let me remind you that Sopore is the hometown of Gulam Rasool Kar, who was at that time a Cabinet Minister in the State Government. It is also the hometown of the Chairman of the Legislative Council, Habibullah, and also of the former National Conference MP and Cabinet Minister, Abdul Shah Vakil. Yet only five votes were cast in Sopore town. In Pattan, an area supposedly under the influence of Iftikar Hussain Ansari, the then Congress (I) Minister, not a single vote was cast. Such was the commitment and standing of your leaders and collaborators in the State.
And you still thought that subversion and terrorism could be fought with such political and administrative intruments.
Around that point of time, when the police set-up was getting rapidly demoralised, when intelligence was fast drying up, when inflitration in services was bringing stories of subversives plan like TOPAC, your protage, Dr. Farooq Abdullah was either going abroad or releasing 70, hardcore and highly motivated torrosists who were trained in the handling of dangerous weapons, who had contacts at the highest level in Pakistan occupied Kashmir, who knew all the devious routes of going to and returning from Pakistan and whose detention had been approved by the three member advisory board presided over by the Chief Justice. Their simultaneous release enabled them to occupy key positions in the network of subversion and terrorism and to complete the chain which took them again to Pakistan to bring arms to indulge in killings and kidnappings and other acts of terrorism. For example, one of the released persons, Mohd. Daud Khan of Ganderbal, became the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of a terrorist outfit, Al-Bakar, and took a leading part in organising a force of 2,500 Kashmiri Youths. Who is to be blamed for all the heinous crimes subsequet}y committed by these released 70 terrorists ? I would leave this question answered by the people to whom you are talking about the "Jagmohan Factor".
The truth, supported by preponderence of evidence, is that before January 19, 1990, the terrorist had become the real ruler. The ground had been yielded to him to such an extent that dominated the public mind. He could virtually swim like a fish in the sea. Would it matter if the sea was subsequently surrounded ?
LABELLING ANTI-MUSLIM: In your attempt to hide all your sins of omission and commission in Kashmir and as a part of your small politics which can not go beyond dividing people and creating vote banks, you took special pains to demolish all regards and respects which the Kashmiri masses, including the Muslim youth, had developed for me during my first term from April 26,1984, to July 12,1989. Against all facts, unassailable evidence, and your own precious pronouncements, you started me labelling me as anti-Muslim.
May I, in this connection, also invite your attention to three of the important suggestions made in my book, Rebuild- ing Shahjahanabad: The Walled City of Delhi. One pertained to the creation of the green velvet between Jama Masjid and Red Fort; the second to the construction of a road linking Parliament House with the Jama Masjid complex, and the third to the setting up of a second Shahajhanabad in the Mata Sundari road-Minto road complex, reflecting the synthetic culture of the city, its traditional as well as its modern texture. Could such suggestions I ask you, come of an anti-Muslim mind ?
FORUM OF PARLIAMENT: How you and your associates use the fonum of Parliament undermine my standing amongst the Kashmiri Muslims, was evident from what N.KP. Salve, MP ?, did in the Rajya Sabha on May 25, 1990.
Referring to the so called interview to the Bombay Weekly, THE CURRENT - an interview which I never gave - Salve chose wholly unjustified expressions; "There was a patent and palpable attitude if very disconcerting communal bias and, therefore, he (Governor) was happy under the garb of eliminating the terrorist, the saboteurs and the culprits, in eliminating the whole community as it were; now the Governor has himself given profuse and unabashed vent to his malicious malignity, hate and extreme dislike, branding every member of a particular community as a militant".
I know Salve. I do not think, if left to himself, he would have done what he did. Clearly, he was goaded to say something which was against his training and background. But the elementary precaution which any jurist, at least a jurist of Salve's imminence, would have taken, was to first check up whether any such interview weekly had been given by me, and if so, whether the remarks attributed to me were actually made. The unseemly haste was itself revealing. The issue was raised on May 25, while the weekly was dated May 26 June 2, 1990. You yourself rushed a let to the President on May 25, on the basis ofthe interview that in reality did not exist. You explained that V.P. Singh had appointed a person with "Rabid Communalist Opinion as Governor. You also got your letter widely published on May 25 itself.
Since your party men did not allow me to have my say in the Rajya Sabha, even when an opportunity came my way to speak on the subject, I was left with no other option but to file a 20 Lakhs damage suit against the Current Weekly in the Delhi High Court. The case may take a long time and I may donate the damages, if and when awarded, to charity, but I intend sparing no effort to expose all those who have played dirty roles in the disinformation-drama.
ARTICLE-370: You created a scene on March 7, 1990, at the time of the visit of the All Party Committee to Srinagar, and made it a point to convey to the people in 1986 I wanted to have Article 370 abrogated. At that critical juncture, when I was fighting the forces of terrorism with my back to the wall beginning to turn the corner after frustrating the sinister designs of the subversives from January 26, 1990 onwards, you thought it appropriate to cause hostility against me by tearing the facts out of context. Whether this act of yours was responsible or irresponsible, I would leave to the nation to decide.
What I had really pointed out in August-September 1986 was: 'Article 370 is nothing but a breeding ground for the parasites at the heart of the paradise. It skins the poor. It deceives them with its mirage. It lines the pockets of the "power elites". It fans the ego of the new sultans, in essence, it creates a land without justice, a land full of crudities and contradictions. It props up politics of deception, duplicity and demagogy. It breeds the microbes of subversion. It keeps alive the unwholesome legacy of the two-nation theory. It sufficates the very idea of India and fogs the very vision of a great social and cultural crucible from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. It could be an epicentre of a violent earth-quake, the tremors of which would be felt all over the country with unforeseen consequences.
I had argued, 'The fundamental aspect which has been lost sight of in the controversy for deletion or retention of Article 370 is its misues. Over the years, it has become an instrument of exploitation in the hands of the ruling political elites and other vested interests in bureaucracy, business, judiciary and bar. Apart from the politicians, the richer classes have found it aonvenient to amass wealth and not allow healthy financial legislation to come to the State. The provisions of the Wealth Tax, the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Gift Tax etc, and other beneficial laws of the Union have not been allowed to be operated in the State under the cover of Article 370. The common people are prevented from realising that Article 370 is actually keeping them impoverished and denying them justice and also their due share in the economic advancement.'
My stand was that the poor people of Kashmir had been exploited under the protective wall of Article 370 and that the correct position needed to be explained to them. I had made a number of suggestions in this regard and also in regard to the reform and reorganisation of the institutional framework. But all these were ignored. A great opportunity was missed.
Subsequent events have reinforced my views that Article 370 and its by product, the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir must go, not only because it is legally and constitutionally feasible to do so, but also because larger and more basic considerations of our past history and contemporary life require it. The Article merely facilitates the growth and continuation of corrupt oligarchies. It puts false notions in the minds of the youth. It gives rise to regional tensions and conflicts and even the autonomy assumed to be available is not attainable in practice. The distinct personality and cultural identity of Kashmir can be safeguarded without this Article. It is socially regressive and causes situations in which women lose thier right if they marry non-State subjects and persons staying for over 44 years in the State are denied elementary human and democratic rights. And, above all, it does not fit into the reality and requirement of India and its vast and varied span. What India needs today is not petty sovereignties that would sap its spirit and aspirations and turn it into small "banana-republics" in the hands of 'tin-pot dictators', but a new social, political and cultural crucible in which values of truth and rectitude, of fairness and justice, and of compassion and catholicity, are melted, purified and moulded into a vigorous and vibrant set- up which provides real freedom, real democracy and real resurgence to all.
I must also point out that when other States in the Union ask for greater autonomy, they do not mean separation of identities. They really want decentralisation and devolution of power, so that administrative and development work is done speedily and the quality of service to the people improves. In Kashmir, the demand for retaining Article 370 with all its 'pristine purity', that is, without the alleged dilution that has taken place since 1953, stems from different motivation. It emanates from a clever strategy to remain away from the mainstream, to set up a separate fiefdom, to fly a separate flag, to have a Prime Minister rather than a Chief Minister, and Sadr-i-Riyasat instead of a Governor, and to secure greater power and patronage, not for the good of the masses, not for serving the cause of peace and progress or for attaining unity amidst diversity, but for serving the interests of 'new elites', the 'new Sheikhs'.
All those aspiring to be the custadians of the vote-banks continue to say that Article 370 is a matter of faith. But they do not proceed further. They do not ask themselves: What does this faith mean? What is its rationale ? Would not bringing the State within the full framework of Indian Constitution give brighter lustre and sharper teeth to this faith and make it more just and meaningful ?
In a similar strain, expressions like 'historical necessity' and 'autonomy' are talked about. What do these mean in practice ? Does historical necessity mean that you include, on paper, Kashmir in the Indian Union by one hand at a huge cost and give it back, in practice, by another hand on the golden platter ? And what does autonomy or so called pre-1953 or pre- 1947 position imply ? Would it not amount to the Kashmiri leadership say in: 'you will send and I will spend; you will have no say even if I build a corrupt and callous oligarchy and cause a situation in which Damocles' sword of secession could be kept hanging on your head' ?
KASHMIRI PANDITS: You and the like of you have made India a country which has lost capacity to be true and just. Anyone trying to be fair is dubbed communal. The case of the Kashmiri Pandits bears eloquent testimony to this fact.
Whatever be the vicissitudes of the Kashmiri Pandits' history and whatever unkind quirks their fate might have brought to them in the past, these all pale into insigficance in companison to what is happening to them at present. The grim tragedy is compounded by the equally grim irony that one of the most intelligent subtle, versatile, and proud community of the country is being virtually reduced to extinction in free India. It is suffering not under the fanatic zeal of mediaeval Sultans like Sikander or under the tyrannical regime of Afghan Governors, but under the supposedly secular rule of leaders like you, V.P. Singh and others who unabashed search for personal and political power is symbolised by calculated disregard of the Kashmiri migrants' current miserable plight and the terrible future that stares in their eyes. And to fill their cup of pain and anguish, there are bodies like 'Committee for Initiative on Kashmir' which are over-anxious and over active to rub salt into their wounds, and to label anyone who wants to stand by them in their hour of distress as communal.
In a soft, superficial, permissive and, in many ways, cruel India which has the tragic distinction of creating over one lakh refugees from its own flesh and blood and then casting them aside like masterless cattle to fend for themselves on the busy and heartless avenues of soulless cities, chances for Kashmiri Pandits to survive as a distinct community are next to nothing. Split, scattered and deserted practically by all, they stand today all alone, looking hopelessly at a leaking, rudderless, boat at their feat and extremely rough and tumultuous sea to face before they can reach a safe shore across to plant their feet firmly on an assured future.
The deep crisis through which the Kashmiri migrants, or for that matter, the entire Kashmir, is passing is really the crisis of Indian values - the perversion, in practice, of its constitutional, political, social and moral norms. If I visited the camps of the refugees and tried to extend the firm hand of justice to a community in pain, if I instructed that, instead of cash doles, the migrant Government servants should be given leave salary, and if I conceded the demand of a widow of the person brutally killed by a terrorist, for allotment of a house on payment, I became communal, a known anti-Muslim, about whom concoted stories were planted in the press. If, on the other hand, someone falsely accused the Indian Army and the Governor's administration, if he assailed Jagmohan in particular, of giving inducements through provisions of plots and trucks, without giving particulars either of plots or of trucks, his accusations got published all over the press, his reports were flaunted in national and international forums and were copiously quoted in Parliament by the members of your party and he was labelled as secular and progressive and champion of human rights and what not. Hard Evidence about 'Jagmohan Factor'. I do not like to refer to anything that looks like indulging in self-praise. But not to let you get away with your calculated campaign of disinformation, about Jagmohan communal factor, I must invite attention to some hard evidence about what the people of the Valley actually thought about me before you and your proteges started the smear campaign on my appointment for the second term.
Your principal prop of current politics of Kashmir, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, was not to be left behind in the drive launched to create an 'anti-Muslim' image of mine. In his interview published in the Times of India of August 30, 1990, he said, "A known anti-Muslim was appointed as Governor of a Muslim majority state". How untrue, how unfair, was the propaganda, should be obvious from the fact that on November 7, 1986, at the time of his swearing-in-ceremony, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, in a public speech for which the records exist, said: "Governor Sahib, we should need you very badly. It is, indeed, amazing that such remarkable work could be done by you in a short time through an imbecile and faction-ridden bureaucracy. If today three ballot boxes are kept - one for the National Conference, one for the Congress and one for you, your ballot box would be full while the other two ballot boxes would be empty".
The misfortune of our country is that we have leaders like Dr. Farooq Abdullah who have no regard for facts or truth and whose superficiality is matched only by their unprincipled politics.
Incidentally, did it not strike you that Dr. Farooq was virtually accusing your late mother of being anti-Muslim because she was the Prime Minister when, in April 1984, a 'known anti-Muslims' was appointed for the first term, as 'Governor of a Muslim majority State" ?
Apparently in consultation with you, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, on February 15, 1990, issued a written statement to the press in Urdu in which he inter alia, said, "The Governor, in the personification of 'Hallaqu' and 'Changez Khan', is bent upon converting the valley into a vast graveyard. On account of continuous curfew since January 20, it is difficult to say how many hundreds of people have become victim of the bullets of the army and paramilitary forces, and in this general slaughter how many hundreds of houses have been destroyed. At this moment, when Kashmiris are witnessing their beloved country being converted into a vast graveyard. I appeal to the national and international upholders of humanity to intervene in Kashmir and have an internatianal inquiry made into the general slaughter of Kashmiris at the hands of army and paramilitary forces".
Here is your 'patriot' calling Kashmir "Aziz Wattan", suggesting a separate country. Here is your 'national leader' asking for an international inquiry into the general slaughter of the Kashmiris by the Indian Army and paramilitary forces. Here is your 'responsible friend' speaking about the continuous curfew for 25 days in the valley and his consequent inability to find out many 'hundreds of innocent and unarmed Kashmiris' had been massacred and how many hundreds of Kashmiri houses razed to the ground, although he knew perfectly well that there had been a number of days when there was no day- curfew, partially or wholly, and the authorities had brought out the list of casualties, about 40 upto February 16, and were daily asking the public to provide with the additional names, if they had any, so that correction in the official list could be made. Here is an erstwhile Chief Minister who did not care to explain how 'innocent and unarmed' people were ruthlessly shooting down IAF officers, BSF jawans, senior officers of the Television and Telecommunications Department and young men in the streets; and how, while inciting people through lengthy and fiery statements, he did not find a single word to condemn such brutal murders.
Is the nation not entitled to know why you have not disowned such unfortunate behaviour on the part of Dr. Farooq Abdullah? And how do you account for his recent statement as published in The Times of India of February 7, 1991: 'I directed my partymen to lie low, go across the border, get training in arms handling; do anything but not get caught by Jagmohan' ?
Stabbing me in the back at personal level, perhaps, did not matter. But by keeping the pot boiling, you your proteges prolonged the agony of Kashmir and caused many more deaths and much more destruction. The politics of unscrupulousness was brought to its lowest depth.
ROOTS: You once said, 'I do not read history; I make history'. Apparently, you do not know that those who happen to make history without reading it, usually make bad history. They cannot understand the undercurrents and the fundamental forces that really shape the course of events and determine the ultimate destiny of a nation.
In the absence of historical perspective, you and the like of you never perceived the roots and tendrils which gave rise to the current crop of separatism and subversion in Kashmir. Poisonous seeds were persistently planted in the Kashmir psyche. And these were liberally fertilised. Those of you whose obligation it was to stop these plantations and their fertilisation, were not aware of even the elementary lesson of history; to compromise with the evil was only to rear greater evil; to ignore the inconvenient reality was only to compound it; to bow before the bully was only to invite the butcher the next day.
I could cite scores of cases to support my contention. Here I would restrict myself to only two examples.
Softness and Surrender. On October 2, 1988, Mahatma Gandhi's birthday his statue was to be installed in the new High Court complex at Srinagar. The function had been announced. The Chief Justice of India, R.S. Pathak, was to do the formal installation. But a few Muslim lawyers objected. They threatened to cause disturbance at the time of the function. The Chief Minister gave in, almost willingly, to the bullying tactics. The function was cancelled.
What are the implications of what happened ? A secular Kashmir, part of a secular India, could not have, even in its highest seat of justice, a statue of the Father of the Nation, of a sage, who laid down his life for communal harmony. Who was the person spearheading the move against the installation ? It was none other than Mohd. Shafi Bhat, an advocate of the J and K High Court and an active number of the National Conference, who was later on given party ticket for Srinagar Lok Sabha seat in the elections held in November 1989 and with whom you kept warm company during your visit to Srinagar on March 7, 1990, to create as many difficulties as possible for Governor's administration.
At that time there was National Conference (F) Congress (I) Ministry in office. Such was its lack of adherence to principles, such was the character of Congressmen who formed part of the Ministry and such was its disposition to cling to power that not even a little finger was raised when the function was cancelled.
The bully's appetite could not have been whetted better. Intimidation could not have secured better results. The troublemakers could not have perceived a more casual and non- committed adversary. Was it not natural for them to nurture higher ambitions and think that more spectacular results could be achieved by deploying a more aggressive and threatening strategy ? Only a naive would believe that in the context of the Kashmir situation, softness and surrender on basic principles would not act as an invitation to terrorism and militancy.
The Union Government enacted the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. It was made applicable to all the States of the Union except J and K. Because of Article 370, concurrence of the State Government was needed for extension of this law to the State. But the same was not given. Why ? Because J and K is different what an argument for having a law which aimed at eradication of misuse of religious premises for political purposes.
Nowhere was this law needed more than in the State of J and K. Nowhere were religious places misused more than here. Nowhere were seeds of fanaticism and fundamentalism sown every Friday more assiduoulsy than from the pulpits of the mosques here. Nowhere was it preached more regularly than here that Indian democracy was un-Islamic, Indian secularism was un-Islamic and Indian socialism was un-Islamic. And yet, neither the State Government which was ruled by two supposedly secular parties, nor the Union Government took the matter seriously. What intrigued the most was that the law which was considered good for 100 million Muslims in other parts of India, was not considered good for 40 lakh Muslims of Kashmir.
What was the use of the nationalist forces ruling the country when they would not act in national interest at all, when they remained mental slaves of the politics of communalism; when they were inclined to place reliance on words and not on deeds; when they did not lead, but succumbed; when they encouraged, and not defeated, separatist elements; when, instead of building a new society strong in human and spiritual values, they did everything, wittingly or unwittingly, to repair, renovate and strengthen the old decaying and smelly sitadel of obscurantism; and when they invariably gave precedence to expediency over the basic goals and principles of our Constitution ? What could be the result of all this ? Did it require any unusual insight to understand where such fipurious forces would take us ?
I leave it to the well-wishers of the nation to consider, without any political or personal bias, a basic question. How was it that Dr. Farooq was calling me Hallaqu and Changez Khan, and you were travelling all the way to Srinagar to 'expose' me as anti-Article 370, anti-Kashmiri and anti-Muslim and, at the same time, Miss Benazir Bhutto was vowing to tear me to pieces - 'Jagmohan ko Bhag-Bhag Mohan Kar Denge' ?
There are many other facets of Kashmir's truth which lie buried underneath the heaps of disinformation and also of superficiality and shallowness. These days I am busy in an attempt to remove some of these heaps. One day, I hope, the country will acquire the true perspective of the problem. The Kashmiri masses would also realise that I was their greatest well-wisher. I wanted to save them permanently from the exploitative oligarches and also from the machinations of religious 'Czars' and forces of obscurantism.
You have already committed the sin of letting down the Bharat Mata in Kashmir. Now do not add to it another sin of letting down the other Mata also. There is, after all, some power above. Conscious of her. She may condone your negligence. But she would not condone your sin of blaming an innocent person for what were your own faults, particularly when he had been persistently reminding you of your obligations.
So far as I am concerned, I am content with my gloomy pride of having done the correct thing in Kashmir. True, I seemingly and, perhaps, temporarily, lost the goodwill of some of the locals. But I was not seeking a certificate from anyone. I had gone for the second term to do a national duty.
The country's polity and administration have assumed such a character that it has become incapable of solving from its roots, any serious problem. Elections have virtually lost all meaning. And these would continue to be meaningless until and unless Indian democracy and its constitutional structure acquires a healthy cultural base, a pure soul and soil, from which the seed of justice, truth and selfless service could sprout and blossom into a Great Tree providing shade and shelter from Kanyakumari to Kashmir. Currently, the inner light is gone, and we are being led virtually by blind men with lanterns in their hands. We stumble from one crisis to another. As a poet says:
It has happened
and it goes on happening
and it will happen again.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Jagmohan
Saturday, June 5, 2010
PM office waiting for Rahul Gandhi !
By. Dr Jitendra Singh
While the Prime Minister's press conference marking completion of UPA II government's first year in office was a distinct indicator of Manmohan Singh having evolved into a politician from a mere economist, Mr Singh's most diplomatic responses were in reply to questions relating to his own future in Prime Minister's office. ‘‘I will continue because I have tasks to complete’’, asserted Mr Manmohan Singh but hastened to add, ‘‘if the party is in favour of young leadership, I shall welcome that’’. To top it, Mr Singh also went ahead to praise what he believed to be Rahul Gandhi's ‘‘high’’ calibre.
In simple terms, in other words, suffice it would to conclude that Mr Manmohan Singh is in no mood to quit as PM but this is subject only to the choice of timing chosen by mother Sonia Gandhi to push in son Rahul Gandhi in the name of handing over the office to a young leadership.
Around 1960 when the question ‘‘After Nehru who?’’ was being fiercely debated, Frank Moraes, eminent journalist and former editor Indian Express had written that it was possibly not compatible with Jawaharlal Nehru's natural disposition that he would impose daughter Indira as his heir-apparent. And yet, in his lifetime itself, Nehru was accused in certain quarters for tacitly grooming Indira to take up the big job after him. But, it was actually in the early 1970s and more so after the imposition of Emergency in 1975 that Indira Gandhi threw aside all semblance of democratic propriety and, without any embarrassment, rather crudely imposed son Sanjay on the Indian polity in the name of passing on the mantle of power to youth.
Following Sanjay's tragic death, Indira Gandhi found nothing wrong in pushing forth her other son Rajiv notwithstanding latter's initial hesitation to enter politics. This infact had at that time prompted the observation in certain quarters that Indira Gandhi was a more committed ‘‘mother’’ than a Prime Minister.
What is even more ironic, is that what was seen to be an anomaly when Indira Gandhi practised it soon became the rule of the game in Indian politics. Some of those politicians and political parties which had earlier denounced Indira Gandhi's tendency to promote her family in politics later on went on to themselves cultivate sons, daughters and other kin to take over the party mantle.
So, this is it ! The Indian polity for the last atleast three decades is known for this familiar though monotonous thesis of passing on the mantle to the progeny in the name of empowering the country's youth. Incidentally, the youth who take over are invariably from one of the known political clans, be it Nehru-Gandhis or Karunanidhis or Badals or Abdullahs. As a sequel to such a transition on each occasion, the new young incubment finds it convenient to consolidate his position in party and hierarchy by surrounding himself with a new set of young henchmen in the name of giving priority to the aspirations of country's youth. This inadvertantly also paves the way for free play of ‘‘money power’’ in politics. And thus, rest of the sequence of events remains the same and so also same remains the plight of country's youth whether it be a young Prime minister or a young Chief Minister taking over either in 1980s or in 2010.
It is, therefore, in a nutshell, the crudest political fraud played each time on the country's youth in the name of country's youth. The common youth of India is meanwhile left with his unenviable fate being lamented precisely by those who are responsible for his fate as Umapathy sums up the predicament with poetic remorse ‘‘......Mere Sogwaaron Mein Aaj Mera Qaatil Hai !’’
While the Prime Minister's press conference marking completion of UPA II government's first year in office was a distinct indicator of Manmohan Singh having evolved into a politician from a mere economist, Mr Singh's most diplomatic responses were in reply to questions relating to his own future in Prime Minister's office. ‘‘I will continue because I have tasks to complete’’, asserted Mr Manmohan Singh but hastened to add, ‘‘if the party is in favour of young leadership, I shall welcome that’’. To top it, Mr Singh also went ahead to praise what he believed to be Rahul Gandhi's ‘‘high’’ calibre.
In simple terms, in other words, suffice it would to conclude that Mr Manmohan Singh is in no mood to quit as PM but this is subject only to the choice of timing chosen by mother Sonia Gandhi to push in son Rahul Gandhi in the name of handing over the office to a young leadership.
Around 1960 when the question ‘‘After Nehru who?’’ was being fiercely debated, Frank Moraes, eminent journalist and former editor Indian Express had written that it was possibly not compatible with Jawaharlal Nehru's natural disposition that he would impose daughter Indira as his heir-apparent. And yet, in his lifetime itself, Nehru was accused in certain quarters for tacitly grooming Indira to take up the big job after him. But, it was actually in the early 1970s and more so after the imposition of Emergency in 1975 that Indira Gandhi threw aside all semblance of democratic propriety and, without any embarrassment, rather crudely imposed son Sanjay on the Indian polity in the name of passing on the mantle of power to youth.
Following Sanjay's tragic death, Indira Gandhi found nothing wrong in pushing forth her other son Rajiv notwithstanding latter's initial hesitation to enter politics. This infact had at that time prompted the observation in certain quarters that Indira Gandhi was a more committed ‘‘mother’’ than a Prime Minister.
What is even more ironic, is that what was seen to be an anomaly when Indira Gandhi practised it soon became the rule of the game in Indian politics. Some of those politicians and political parties which had earlier denounced Indira Gandhi's tendency to promote her family in politics later on went on to themselves cultivate sons, daughters and other kin to take over the party mantle.
So, this is it ! The Indian polity for the last atleast three decades is known for this familiar though monotonous thesis of passing on the mantle to the progeny in the name of empowering the country's youth. Incidentally, the youth who take over are invariably from one of the known political clans, be it Nehru-Gandhis or Karunanidhis or Badals or Abdullahs. As a sequel to such a transition on each occasion, the new young incubment finds it convenient to consolidate his position in party and hierarchy by surrounding himself with a new set of young henchmen in the name of giving priority to the aspirations of country's youth. This inadvertantly also paves the way for free play of ‘‘money power’’ in politics. And thus, rest of the sequence of events remains the same and so also same remains the plight of country's youth whether it be a young Prime minister or a young Chief Minister taking over either in 1980s or in 2010.
It is, therefore, in a nutshell, the crudest political fraud played each time on the country's youth in the name of country's youth. The common youth of India is meanwhile left with his unenviable fate being lamented precisely by those who are responsible for his fate as Umapathy sums up the predicament with poetic remorse ‘‘......Mere Sogwaaron Mein Aaj Mera Qaatil Hai !’’
Sunday, May 30, 2010
‘Mercy’ for Afzal Guru, Kasab....?
By: Dr. Jatendra Singh
If things keep moving the way these are.. with the same speed and same style.. the day is not far when India would be known as a country not of ‘‘death sentence convicts’’ but of ‘‘death sentence mercy appellants’’, as a country not of ‘‘convicts awaiting hanging’’ but of ‘‘convicts hanging around without being hanged’’. A look at records reveals that even if the Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab's much publicised death sentence is finally upheld, he may still not see the death gallows for another ten years just as Afzal Guru of the infamous Parliament attack has been left unhanged long enough to project himself as somebody who has been more wronged than the wrong, if at all, committed by him at the risk of triggering an ‘‘Aar Par Ki Larhai’’, to use the famous words of the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.
When the founding fathers of Indian constitution laid down the rider of death sentence for the ‘‘rarest of the rarest’’ crime, they left it to the future courts to decide what qualified as the ‘‘rarest of the rarest’’ crime and they were probably so much enamoured by the countrywide mass patriotic fervour of newly achieved independence that they could hardly envisage the future possibility of anybody indulging in an act of sedition or war against India's sovereignity. Does this mean that the times have moved ahead too fast and too recklessly to be governed by the sacred spirit of a constitution which was framed over half a century ago ?
The first time India's middle class got to hear a loud discussion about the constitutional provision of a mercy appeal against death sentence was just a few years after India became a republic and Nanavati case hit the headlines bringing instant fame for Ram Jethmalani as a criminal lawyer. Admiral Nanavati had murdered the paramour of his adulterous wife in a fit of rage and the whole nation including Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru seemed to sympathise with the predicament in which such a decorated soldier had landed himself.
Much water has flown since then. Today murders, assaults and attacks are committed in return for pecuniary gains and a terror attack against India fetches the highest renumeration. To make things easier for the perpetrators, the Indian state has inadvertantly earned the dubious distinction of being a ‘‘banana republic’’ where an act of terrorism is followed by reflex condemnation from all and sundry coupled with loud platitudes and resolves from polity and society only to be soon conveniently forgotten till there is a fresh episode of yet another terror incident and the same monotonous sequence follows all over again. Unless there are clear unequivocal deterrants in the form of prompt and exemplary punishment to those who dare challenge the sovereignity of Indian republic, the nation will continue to remain at the receiving end of cunning operators who know they can hit at you at will and you neither possess the courage nor clarity to retaliate.
The Z-security guarded, militant friendly politicians who say that Afzal Guru's mercy petition be treated like that of any other mercy petitioner, are infact tacitly trying to keep the separatists in good humour. These clever smarties need to be told unequivocally that Afzal Guru's is indeed a special case because it has turned into a trial case for India's will and strength to stay as India. It is in that spirit that the common man awaits verdict on Afzal Guru. Umpathy has little regard for politicians who speak philosophical platitudes from behind the bullet proof curtains, or, to use bard's expression ‘‘.....Jo Kinaare Par Baithe Maujon Ka Nazaara Karte Hain !’’
If things keep moving the way these are.. with the same speed and same style.. the day is not far when India would be known as a country not of ‘‘death sentence convicts’’ but of ‘‘death sentence mercy appellants’’, as a country not of ‘‘convicts awaiting hanging’’ but of ‘‘convicts hanging around without being hanged’’. A look at records reveals that even if the Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab's much publicised death sentence is finally upheld, he may still not see the death gallows for another ten years just as Afzal Guru of the infamous Parliament attack has been left unhanged long enough to project himself as somebody who has been more wronged than the wrong, if at all, committed by him at the risk of triggering an ‘‘Aar Par Ki Larhai’’, to use the famous words of the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.
When the founding fathers of Indian constitution laid down the rider of death sentence for the ‘‘rarest of the rarest’’ crime, they left it to the future courts to decide what qualified as the ‘‘rarest of the rarest’’ crime and they were probably so much enamoured by the countrywide mass patriotic fervour of newly achieved independence that they could hardly envisage the future possibility of anybody indulging in an act of sedition or war against India's sovereignity. Does this mean that the times have moved ahead too fast and too recklessly to be governed by the sacred spirit of a constitution which was framed over half a century ago ?
The first time India's middle class got to hear a loud discussion about the constitutional provision of a mercy appeal against death sentence was just a few years after India became a republic and Nanavati case hit the headlines bringing instant fame for Ram Jethmalani as a criminal lawyer. Admiral Nanavati had murdered the paramour of his adulterous wife in a fit of rage and the whole nation including Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru seemed to sympathise with the predicament in which such a decorated soldier had landed himself.
Much water has flown since then. Today murders, assaults and attacks are committed in return for pecuniary gains and a terror attack against India fetches the highest renumeration. To make things easier for the perpetrators, the Indian state has inadvertantly earned the dubious distinction of being a ‘‘banana republic’’ where an act of terrorism is followed by reflex condemnation from all and sundry coupled with loud platitudes and resolves from polity and society only to be soon conveniently forgotten till there is a fresh episode of yet another terror incident and the same monotonous sequence follows all over again. Unless there are clear unequivocal deterrants in the form of prompt and exemplary punishment to those who dare challenge the sovereignity of Indian republic, the nation will continue to remain at the receiving end of cunning operators who know they can hit at you at will and you neither possess the courage nor clarity to retaliate.
The Z-security guarded, militant friendly politicians who say that Afzal Guru's mercy petition be treated like that of any other mercy petitioner, are infact tacitly trying to keep the separatists in good humour. These clever smarties need to be told unequivocally that Afzal Guru's is indeed a special case because it has turned into a trial case for India's will and strength to stay as India. It is in that spirit that the common man awaits verdict on Afzal Guru. Umpathy has little regard for politicians who speak philosophical platitudes from behind the bullet proof curtains, or, to use bard's expression ‘‘.....Jo Kinaare Par Baithe Maujon Ka Nazaara Karte Hain !’’
Friday, May 28, 2010
United Jammu
Hi Everyone,
Jai Hind!
It has been over 60 years for Jammu to be discrimanted on almost all spheres by the Kashmir Leadership. The big worring factor is that even New Delhi never paid any heed to Jammu region, which has given many soldiers and martyrs to this country.
It was apparent during Amarnath agitation, that people in Jammu are truly secular and nationalist in every aspect.
We have created this blog to combine the ideas of like minded people and keep whole world aware of the ground realties which are otherwise misrepresented or not even projected at all.
This is our first step towards uniting Jammu and make its presence felt.
Regards
Jai Hind!
It has been over 60 years for Jammu to be discrimanted on almost all spheres by the Kashmir Leadership. The big worring factor is that even New Delhi never paid any heed to Jammu region, which has given many soldiers and martyrs to this country.
It was apparent during Amarnath agitation, that people in Jammu are truly secular and nationalist in every aspect.
We have created this blog to combine the ideas of like minded people and keep whole world aware of the ground realties which are otherwise misrepresented or not even projected at all.
This is our first step towards uniting Jammu and make its presence felt.
Regards
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)