Why Kashmir Deserves Discussion by Rajinder Puri SignUp
Boloji.com
Boloji
Home Kabir Poetry Blogs BoloKids Writers Contribute Search Contact Site Map Advertise RSS Login Register
Boloji
Channels

In Focus

Analysis
Cartoons
Education
Environment
Going Inner
Opinion
Photo Essays

Columns

A Bystander's Diary
Business
My Word
PlainSpeak
Random Thoughts

Our Heritage

Architecture
Astrology
Ayurveda
Buddhism
Cinema
Culture
Dances
Festivals
Hinduism
History
People
Places
Sikhism
Spirituality
Vastu
Vithika

Society & Lifestyle

Family Matters
Health
Parenting
Perspective
Recipes
Society
Teens
Women

Creative Writings

Book Reviews
Ghalib's Corner
Humor
Individuality
Literary Shelf
Love Letters
Memoirs
Musings
Quotes
Ramblings
Stories
Travelogues
Workshop

Computing

CC++
Computing Articles
Flash
Internet Security
Java
Linux
Networking
My Word Share This Page
Why Kashmir Deserves Discussion
by Rajinder Puri Bookmark and Share
 

Apart from winning elections does the BJP have any other goal? Responding to Pakistan cross border attacks BJP President Mr. Amit Shah criticized Mr. Omar Abdullah’s stand. What about the central government’s own responsibility? Does government have the guts to adopt this writer’s prescription to defeat Pakistan’s “proxy war” as defined by the PM? If not, the government must devise steps to achieve a diplomatic settlement on Kashmir. The government is neither tough nor conciliatory. It makes hollow statements.

External Affairs spokesman Mr. Syed Akbaruddun rebuffed Pakistan High Commissioner Mr. Abdul Basit for meeting Kashmir separatist leaders. Mr. Basit stated: “We need to engage with all stakeholders.” Mr. Akbaruddin responded: “After 1972 and the signing of the Simla Agreement by the prime ministers of India and Pakistan, there are only two stakeholders… the Union of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”

The Indian spokesman was wrong in logic and in emphasis.

The High Commissioner ignoring the formal demand of the Indian Foreign Office to not meet with the separatist leaders was objectionable. Describing inhabitants of Kashmir to be stakeholders in the talks was not. If not separatist leaders, are not elected representatives of the state stakeholders in the Kashmir dispute? Commitment to bilateral talks in the Simla Agreement excluded foreign governments, not citizens of both countries. Even separatist Hurriyat leaders are citizens of India and part of the Indian Union. That is the government’s prime argument by which their separatist demand is debunked. Need one remind the Ministry of External Affairs that Pandit Nehru had stated that the accession of Kashmir to India was “subject to the approval of the people” of Jammu and Kashmir?

The Indian public is frequently told that there is no Kashmir dispute therefore there is nothing to discuss. Really? The British in 1947 gave the right to princely states to either merge with India or Pakistan or remain independent The State of Jammu and Kashmir had a Hindu ruler, Muslim majority population and contiguous borders with both India and Pakistan. Therefore J&K ruler Maharaja Hari Singh sought independence. Pakistan launched an attack on Kashmir by so called raiders. Unable to defend the state Maharaja Hari Singh acceded to India. Due to the preceding events Prime Minister Nehru accepted his state’s accession on the precondition of it being “subject to the approval of the people”.

India’s constitutional position is that the whole of Kashmir belongs to India. In fact half is occupied by Pakistan. Does that leave nothing to discuss?

The UN passed a resolution for plebiscite subject to preconditions wholly unfavourable to Pakistan demanding all its army and citizens to vacate the state. But the resolution was non-enforceable. It relied on mutual agreement of India and Pakistan. Subsequently Pakistan continues to demand plebiscite and India continues to stonewall the demand without propagating that preconditions are unimplemented by Pakistan. In global perception Pakistan becomes the victim and India the exploiter. In the light of the above record should not India discuss Kashmir?

26-Aug-2014
More by :  Rajinder Puri
 
Views: 326
Article Comment Nehru made the biggest blunder by agreeing to plebicite which is unconstitutional and now there is no way Indian government can extricate from this blunder.Yes, we can keep saying why not ask Pakistan to vacate POK? For argument sake,if GOI takes this line and if Pakistan agrees to vacate POK with an assurance from UN to conduct free and fair polls in entire J&K and if the results go against India, how can the present govt.or any govt. of India agree to it when the constitution clearly states entire J&K is part of India? Modi should stick to strengthening defense in the state,also placing substantial number of retired defence personnal with their families for development of the state's infrastructure.He should also be proactive in settling back all the displaced kashmiri pundits with a clear order to all the separatists in kashmir that if the pundits are harmed in any way, greater harm will befall them.Over a period of 15 years we can settle the insurgency issue in present kashmir.By that time, pakistan will disintegrate making it easier to annexe the rest of J&K.Atleast I have a road map not simply critisizing govt especially major blunders have been committed by the nehru clan.Why jump on Modi for their idiocy?
shiv
08/28/2014
Article Comment The matter of Kashmir is very simple. In numbers, muslim population dominates. The king was Hindu. So it alligned with India. If Nehru had heeded Shyama Prasad Mukherjee's prescription, the country would have been spared the state of affairs prevailing since decades. Pakistan is a failed state. Till it washes off its religious coat it has no future. Washing off its religious coat will obliterate it. So, we must understand that we have a Palestine amongst us. The difference is that Palestine fights its own war. As regards Kashmir, Pakistan fights a proxy war. It trains militants and makes them intrude and carry out destructive activities. As long as Pakistan does not break up into Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan and POK, woes of India will never end. Misconstrued jihad keeps West Asia boiling through centuries. With Independence from British rule, Kashmir makes a small South Asian region boiling every now and then. The situation in Kashmir can be improved only in increments, if at all. Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh can be made separate Union Territories and run through Administrators. Democracy is a sham when Kashmiri Pundits can not stay there. We can have walls erected in parts of the border areas of Jammu & Kashmir to prevent Pakistan from shelling intermittently. Narendra Modi's Government is correct when it says, after Simla Agreement there are only two stakeholders, and not three. Pakistan only camouflages its designs by speaking otherwise.
Sharbaaniranjan Kundu
08/26/2014
 
Top | My Word







A Bystander's Diary Analysis Architecture Astrology Ayurveda Book Reviews
Buddhism Business Cartoons CC++ Cinema Computing Articles
Culture Dances Education Environment Family Matters Festivals
Flash Ghalib's Corner Going Inner Health Hinduism History
Humor Individuality Internet Security Java Linux Literary Shelf
Love Letters Memoirs Musings My Word Networking Opinion
Parenting People Perspective Photo Essays Places PlainSpeak
Quotes Ramblings Random Thoughts Recipes Sikhism Society
Spirituality Stories Teens Travelogues Vastu Vithika
Women Workshop
RSS Feed RSS Feed Home | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Site Map
No part of this Internet site may be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Developed and Programmed by ekant solutions