Another short one as the nation debates its response to the violent protests sweeping Jammu on the Amarnath issue.
Two op-eds have caught Offstumped’s attention. The first is by Pratap Bhanu Mehta in the Indian Express who gets Offstumped kudos? as the first commentator in the mainstream media for calling Omar Abdullah’s speech for what it really was
Omar Abdullah?s ridiculously feted speech exemplifies this perfectly. When he made the claim that opposing the land transfer was a case of fighting for one?s land, he made the link between communalism and territoriality. Implicit were two explosive links: first, that only one particular community has any claim to land in Kashmir. Even granting Kashmir?s special status, the acceptance of this foundational principle is a massive concession to communalism. Second, he lent credence to all those who exaggeratedly believe that a mere 40 acres is a prelude to colonisation by some ?alien?. Of course Muslims have for centuries facilitated the yatra. But that deep cultural fact is then used as a shield to elevate a minor matter to gigantic political proportions; a hard-won cultural interface sacrificed on the altar of that innocent sounding phrase, nationalism
But Mehta’s piece falls short on 2 counts, it does not offer a solution to the controversy nor does it take a clear stance on the 2 issues underlying the Amarnath controversy. The role of the State in managing Religious Institutions and the Constitutional and Political Sanction to Muslim Majoritarianism in Kashmir. By taking intellectual refuge in Communalism having seeped every level of public discourse Mr. Mehta’s refreshing candor ends as an exercise in political correctness.
The second piece is from an unlikely quarter, Titled “Why Regionalism” by Prof. Muhammad Aslam teaches English at University of Kashmir in the department of English. Prof Aslam’s piece caught Offstumped’s attention for these remarks
If as a Kashmiri I am asked to spell out these ?aspirations?, what would I name? It would be very difficult for me to do so because I find every State in India sailing in the same boat. If the basic assumption underlying the term is that Kashmir?s needs, expectations and perceptions are different from say Karnatka, Mumbai or UP and only a regional party can work towards achieving these objectives, I find myself in a dilemma! Are my needs different from a UPean or a Kannada? I do not think so. For instance, power crisis is as acute in UP as it is in Kashmir; food and fuel prices are as high in Kashmir as they are any where in India; people living below poverty line can be found in any State of India, Kashmir being no exception; roads are as bad in Kashmir as they are say in Jaipur; corruption is as rampant in Kashmir as it is anywhere else and political leadership is as bad, or as good, here as it is in any other state.
What are my aspirations, then, here in Kashmir? Honestly speaking, I don?t know.
The good Professor then goes on to argue why an independent Kashmir had a slim or no chance of surviving as a nation. He goes further to rip apart the principa political players in Kashmir. What however stands out in this piece is not a single mention of Pakistan or open borders with Pakistan Occuppied Kashmir. It was not a priority issue, it was not even a footnote in his laundry list of desires.
Is Prof Aslam’s piece an exercise in political correctness or an aberration of an intellectual or a sign of of how the non-vocal majority of Kashmiris think ?
Prof Aslam’s calls the BJP an enemy of Kashmiris, but with his piece raising issues of governance and autonomy to states no different from the rest of India, one must conclude that there is a constituency in Kashmir that views it as being no different from the rest of India.
Are the communal socialist defenders of Article 370 listening ?
Filed under: amarnath controversy
IMO, Mehta’s article was nothing but intellectual hogwash, and as Yossarin rightly pointed out fails to outline any practical solutions for the prevailing situation, and his too much quoting of Gandhi does not sit well with me, ‘coz again methink Gandhi’s policies, be it pre-independence or post, failed to take Hindus’ viewpoint as well as well-being in perspective when dealing with Muslims or Pakistan. Gandhi’s policies, with all due-respect, in dealing with your adversaries in today’s world are totally irrelevant, so to adopt his approach establishes the fact that Indians can be bullied and emotionnally blackmailed into subverting their interests, esp long-term ones & have never learned anything from history, and we all remember as to what happens when we fail to do so: we are condemned to repeat those events.
Now regarding the second article, I agree with the author’s assertion of the aspirations of Kashmiri people no different from their counterparts in rest of the nation, but further ahead, when his arguments meander toward the oft-repeated arguments against ‘communal forces’ & BJP, the article loses its objectivity. The author, as is the wont of many ‘intellectual’ Kashmiris like him (Yaseen Malik, for one comes to my mind @ this point) seems to be riding a moral high-ground & indulging in a lot of grandstanding & pontification, though I agree with him about the elections during 80s being rigged, but that was the case with many other states in India, why Kashmiris are peeved @ this more than others (esp. when their aspirations are same as other Indian citizens) I fail to understand…would sure welcome if somebody cares to enlighten me…:)
Again, both of the articles offer nothing more than rhetorical arguments with little or no objective asessment of or solution for current scenario!
Pratap Bhanu Mehta is one who takes refuge in the safety of political correctness, as I have also noted in my yesterday’s post. You should read his post on Gujjar agitation to grasp the intellectual’s worth.
Its a mass movement of gigantic proportion. National media, as usual, did not report it.
Please watch youtube- you will be amazed to see how people from all sections of society- men, women, students, youth, doctors, legal fraternity, business community- ALL joined.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jammu&search_sort=video_date_uploaded
Also, if not already, please visit this local newspaper from Jammu for detailed reporting.
http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/
Dear Sootradhaar,
Pratap bhanu mehta is making politically correct sentences, but he have a grasp of hiden agenda of the vote bank plociy of secular parties and closed-eyes mainstream media towards anything wrongdoing of muslim compare to many others.
He has great reservation on BJP, but no pathelogical hatred.
I agree with SOOTHRADHAR. Indira Gandhi during her time rigged almost all elections in almost all states so what the hell are Kashmiris so peeved about? The congress in its recent avatar again played the same game in Bihar, Goa etc so what’s new?
As far as calling BJP as communal its become de rigeur to blame all communal flare ups on it.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta is all talk and no substance. Nowhere in any of his writings has he offered concrete solutions.
Yossarin…
The real cause of this violent upsurge by the Jammuites is something else. The root cause is the failure to satify the aspirations of the minorities in the state. Right now, Jammu wants an end to this Kashmiri Imperialism,which was thrust upon by them by the Kashmiri Muslim leadership and the Government of India.
They, Hindus of Kashmir want an end to the Kashmiri muslim interference in their sphere of life.Be it politics,economy,society,culture
Yossarin…
I have come to feel that whenever J & K is discussed, it must be discussed separetly.i.e Jammu separetly and Kashmir separetly.
The real cause of this violent upsurge by the Jammuites is something else. The root cause is the failure to satify the aspirations of minorities(Dogras,Ladakhis,Gujjars,Paharis etc) in the state. Right now, Jammu wants an end to this Kashmiri Imperialism,which was thrust upon by them by the Kashmiri Muslim leadership and the Government of India.
They, the minorities(especially Hindus) of Kashmir want an end to the Kashmiri Muslim interference in their sphere of life.Be it politics,economy,society,culture.
It is felt that the writ of the Majority Muslims runs in the state and the centre.
This land transfer thing has just given the minorities ( Hindus)to come out and express their pent up anger.
You pointed out to me on the other Amarnath protest thread that ” IF YOU COMMIT A CRIME , YOU GO TO JAIL, PERIOD”.
Yes, you are cent percent right,however, the issue over is neglect of the minorities by the Kashmiri muslims and the centre.
Let us not forget that these very same minorites,quitely subscribed to the Non violent means in 1989, 1990 and the 90’s in general, when the Hindus were hounded out of their homes, the Anantnag riots of 1989. They took it all in a stride.
Where do they go? Even the repeated governments in the Centre have been indifferent to them. There voice must be heard and un fortunately they have taken this route.
You will have to agree that NOW THEIR VOICE IS BEING HEARD, these reports of the Hurriyat, PDP, Congress getting restless is nothing as they know that Hindus are now hopping mad at the turn of events and will not take any more in justice lying down.
Here another interesting piece of article today in the TOI, in a faraway land from us : FRANCE. I cant find the link but the heading is “FRANCE WINEGROWERS TURN TERRORISTS”. Here a farmer was injured when the explosives he was trying to put together exploded and he is in a hospital.
However, I am posting an article on this French farmer’s action from the BBC site:
French wine-growers go guerrilla
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6759953.stm
In this case too, the French winegrowers after years of appeal to their government have decided to take up hostile action to drive home their point.
WHATEVER GOES AROUND, COME AROUND…This violence by the Jammuites must be looked at in a different light, rather then just calling it Communal violence.
YossBoss..
Please delete # 6
Dear Malay,
You contradict yourself…on one hand you assert that Mehta has a grasp of hiiden agenda, and on the other you mention that he is making P.C. statements, than its pretty obvious that he is falling short of fulfilling is duty or dharm of being a journalist, that too an objective one. Mehta, as per your statement, also has knowledge of the closed-eye approach of MSM towards ny wrong-doing on part of minorities (read Muslim/Christian), then his game is up, simpe ‘coz he being an ‘inside-man’ is just trying to pull wool over the readers’ eye in the garb of intellectual musings…thats why I mentioned that his article was nothing more than BS & hogwash. It fails to serve any purpose…neither is it candid in its assessment of the situation – btw, if it is, it remarkably fails to showup in his writing, nor critical of the mishandling & laxity on part of the authorities to let the situation deteriorate to such an extent.
IMO, if all these ‘intellectual’ types keep their opinions to themselves, rather than muddying the waters of polticial discourse, they would render a great service to nation.
They should held a referendum in J&K as to who wants to fully merge with India and who wants to keep the 370 status quo. Obviously except the valley other regions will opt for forsaking 370. Then just before their full merger move as many Jammuites into the valley using the current law. Unless the demographics in Kashmir are restored we will have this headache.
Here guys look at the unity amongst the Hindus, Sikhs etc on the issue:
“Meanwhile, in Jammu, an all-party protest: Cong, NC, PDP join the crowd”
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/345237.html
This proves that this is a popular stir demanding more say within the state affairs.
No doubt the secularists are riled up, they cannot tolerate this Hindu rising.
Karan Singh’s 5-point formula requires careful consideration for way out of the present impasse.
http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story3%2Etxt&counter_img=3
J…
One of these proposals : The land be handed over to the SASB during the yatra is also proposed by Farooq Abdullah and I think BJP will accept this plan by both Abdullah and Karan Singh.
Please sign the petition available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/Amarnath/petition/html
Thanks…Done…
Is there an opportunity in this crisis?
Is this the time for BJP to strongly recommend a bifurcation or trifurcation of the Jammu-Kashmir state into separate states? That should be followed by revoking the Article 370 from the new states of Jammu & Ladakh followed by encouraging private industries to invest wherever they want – Kashmir or Jammu. Then see the progress in 5 to 10 years time.
Done
tarun Vijay has written an article in which he states that the Abdullas and others are protesting about the ‘land’ given to ‘Hindus for settlement ‘ Why dont they protest the land in the illegal occupation of our neighbours?
As per his article: Complete Jk total area 222236 sq km.
78114 sq km.under Pak
37555 sq km.under under China
59211 sq km.under Ladakh 26293 sq km.under jammu
15833 sq km.under valley
his article contains an implicit suggestion that BJP must ask this Q to the NC and PDP ie ” Why dont you protest the illegal occupation of land when you protest land allotment to Samiti”
Meanwhile, in jammu supplies are strained, milk is at Rs.50 and patience is thin. How long will the courtiers and chumchas take to show some action
action does not mean dismissing vohra and shivraj( blasts goofups + jammu + simi ‘techincal mistake by home ministry! ‘) and installing more courtiers!
SK…
The Samiti has united Hindus under one umbrella, look I have posted an IE link above.
The government is shitting their pants, BJP has told that no talks possible without Sangharsh Samiti members.
This might be not acceptable to the Muslim separatists, lets see what comes next.
One thing is for sure, these fellas, have caught the government by their balls, they wont let go of so easily.
Some News:
“All members of Amarnath Shrine Board resign”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/All_members_of_Amarnath_Shrine_Board_resign/articleshow/3332942.cms
Jiggs read this!!
What if Rajiv Gandhi hadn’t unlocked the Babri Masjid in 1986?
This article first appeared in the online version of the newsmagazine
‘Outlook India’ (issue dt. 23 August 2004) at the URL
http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040823&fname=UCol+Koenraad&sid=1
In 1985, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi gave in to Muslim pressure in the Shah Bano affair. Overruling a secular court’s decision that the repudiated wife Shah Bano was entitled to alimony from her ex-husband, he enacted a law abolishing the alimony provision in conformity with the Shari?a. Since India, unlike secular states, already had religion-based Civil Codes, this concession merely brought the minor matter of alimony under the purview of the prevailing arrangement. More importantly, it prevented riots.
Only months later, Gandhi restored the balance by giving the Hindus something as well: he ordered the locks on the Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid in Ayodhya removed. Until then, a priest had been permitted to perform puja once a year for the idols installed there in 1949. Now, all Hindus were given access to what they consider as the birthplace of Rama, the prince posthumously deified as an incarnation of Vishnu.
Fundamentally, this decision didn’t alter the Ayodhya equation. Architecturally, the building was and remained a mosque, while functionally, it had been and continued to be a Hindu temple. That is why in my opinion, not taking this decision wouldn’t have changed the Ayodhya developments except in their timing. The different players, their strategies and goals, and their resolve to pursue these, all remained the same. The Babri Masjid Action Committee and the Vishva Hindu Parishad would have gone about their business just the same.
However, the VHP would have been forced to continue pushing the rather petty demand for removing the locks, rather than move on to the more ambitious and more mobilizing next step of planning the construction of a new temple. Most probably, the BJP would likewise have reaped smaller dividends from such a campaign. In 1989, it might not have jumped as high as 86 seats. Conversely, Congress might not have lost the North-Indian Muslim vote to the Janata Dal. In 1989, it could have remained just strong enough to cobble together a coalition rather than leave the initiative to the unwholesome and unstable Janata-BJP-Communist combine. So, at the level of party politics, Rajiv Gandhi’s decision may have made a big difference.
On the other hand, the presence or absence of locks might have made little difference to the Kar Sevaks who brought the building down in 1992. Then again, with a Rajiv Gandhi government returning to power in 1989, there might have been no reason for this extreme move. The Hindus might by then have gotten their sacred site without a fight.
After all, in a situation where both Hindus and Muslims were laying claim to the site, Gandhi’s decision in 1986 was important because it allowed for only one interpretation: he favoured the Hindu claim. This was logical, for the site has a sacred significance for Hindus as the putative birthplace of Rama, while it had no special status for Muslims. Historical documents confirm that Hindus continued to go on pilgrimage to the site all through the centuries of Muslim occupation, while no Muslim ever went on pilgrimage there.
Admittedly, a Muslim lobby had been formed which insisted on reoccupying this Hindu sacred site. However, the existing Congress culture notoriously knew how to deal with such problems: give the Muslim lobbyists some ministerial posts, some public largesse for their institutes or a raise in the Hajj subsidies, and they will come around. A small application of this approach was the annulment of Syed Shahabuddin’s announced march on Ayodhya in 1988 in exchange for the governmental ban on Salman Rushdie?s freshly-released book The Satanic Verses. A similar but bigger concession might have annulled the Muslim claim on the Ayodhya site. It would not have been the most principled policy, but it would have avoided a lot of communal blood-letting.
This pragmatic approach was thwarted midway. It is not often that intellectuals play a crucial role in politics, but this time they did. After the locks had been removed, India’s Marxist intellectuals unchained all their devils in order to prevent the full restoration of the site as a Hindu pilgrimage centre. In particular, they started insisting that there had never been a Hindu temple at the site before a mosque had been imposed on it.
This was a strange claim to make, for two reasons. Firstly, it was untrue. Until then, all parties concerned had agreed that the mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a temple. What is nowadays rubbished as ‘the VHP claim’ was in fact the consensus view. Thus, in court proceedings in the 1880s, the Muslim claimants and the British rulers agreed with the Hindu claimants on the historical fact of the temple demolition, but since it had happened centuries earlier, they decided that time had sanctioned the Muslim usurpation and nullified the Hindus’ legal claim. Further, numerous documents and several archaeological excavations confirmed the history of the temple demolition (with the court-ordered excavations of spring 2003 removing the last possible doubts). The sudden denial of this history by a circle of Marxist historians was not based on any new evidence but purely on political compulsions. It seems that their long enjoyment of a hegemonic power position in academe had gone to their heads, so they thought they could get away with crude history falsification.
Secondly, the question of the site’s history was beside the point. The decisive consideration for awarding the site to the Hindus, both for the Hindu campaigners themselves and for Rajiv Gandhi, was not the site’s sacred status in the Middle Ages, but its sacredness for Hindus today. It is the Hindus of 1986 or indeed of 2004 who have been going on pilgrimage to Ayodhya, and they are as much entitled to find a Hindu atmosphere there, complete with Hindu architecture, as Muslims are entitled to find an Islamic atmosphere in Mecca. The VHP has been blamed for politicising history, but it was its opponents who complicated matters by bringing in history, and false history at that.
Nonetheless, the Marxist historians had their way. In their shrill manifestoes, these secular fundamentalists slandered the genuine historians who stood by the facts, and they denounced the Hindus’ perfectly reasonable expectation that a Hindu sacred site be left in the exclusive care of the Hindus. They did this with such titanic vehemence that the pragmatists were thrown on the defensive.
Rajiv Gandhi didn’t give up, though. In 1989, he allowed the Shilanyas ceremony, in which the first stone of the planned temple was put in place. In 1990, as opposition leader, he made Chandra Shekhar’s minority government organize a scholars’ debate on the history of the site, obviously on the assumption that this would confirm the Hindu claim. And so it did, for the anti-temple historians showed up empty-handed when they were asked to provide evidence for an alternative scenario to the temple demolition. In a normal course of events, i.e. without the interference of secularist shrieks and howls, this would have set the stage for the peaceful construction of a new temple in the 1990s, with some compensation for the Muslim community, and the conflict would have been forgotten by now. Instead, the sore has continued to fester. In 1991 Rajiv Gandhi was murdered, and his successors didn’t have the good sense to continue his equitable and pragmatic Ayodhya policy.
bhanu…
Well Reasoned article.
This is not the first time, I have read that Rajiv in the last years of his life, did few sensible things.
Dr. Subramaniam Swamy who although being politically opposed to the Congress was a personal friend of Rajiv. he too has claimed that Rajiv was worried about a specific coterie in the Congress that was anti National.
Great stuff, you made my day.
Congress and SP are asking for ban on RSS. Why only RSS..ban VHP, Bajrang Dal and BJP.
Next demolish temples and ban hindu religion and make India a Islamic republic and shariah as the law.
We dont need Indian mujahdeen when congress and SP are playing that role amazingly well.
Keep it UP fellas ! way to go.
Were terrorists behind landslide rumour?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Were_terrorists_behind_landslide_rumour/articleshow/3331224.cms
>>Congress and SP are asking for ban on RSS. Why only RSS..ban VHP, Bajrang Dal and BJP. <<
Again squarely the blame goes to ABV. Had he not been so soft on Sonia and allowed Mayawati / Kalyan duo to continue instead of allowing Mulla Sing to form the Govt, Mayawati by now would have seen an end to this scourge of Salman (Lousiana Khursheed)-Mullah Sing tango.
Is it not the curse of Gandhari-:) The only Yadavs left after its effects are Kansa ancestors, like Mullah and Lalva
FYI.
Appeasement is never good for a nation
Lalit Koul
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/06guest.htm
The hindu intafada
http://in.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/05gupta.htm
Jammu’s Hindu uprising
Kanchan Gupta
Don’t flee Jammu, Geelani asks Muslims
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Don–t-flee-Jammu–Geelani-asks-Muslims/343844/
Yes, mr geelani, ethnic cleansing can work both ways !
Aryan..
Good news from J & K are from following:
DAILY EXCELSIOR – JAMMU
KASHMIR HERALD / TIMES – SRINAGAR
Look up their websites. I think they are quite accurate. Lalit Koul has written a superb piece on the Mufti’s in Kashmir Herald I think.
Jammu stands up to Kashmir – sandhya jain
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=jain%2Fjain147.txt&writer=jain
E-mails to news channels revealed it was jihad — being waged to fragment the ancient unity wrought by the tapas of 12 Vedic seers from whom all Hindus claim descent. Media has noticed the targetting of centres of traditional and emerging economy (diamonds, IT), but the aim is to frighten Hindu business and professional middle classes; to convince them of jihad’s awesome power; and persuade them to fall in line behind the pusillanimous political class. Developments in Jammu should convince Islamists that Hindus can think on their feet.
the article should have been titled hindus stand up to jihadis. anyways, the last sentence sums it all up.
As a matter of fact, such blasts strengthen people’s resolve to fight it out if need arises.
I can say this from my experience of the Mumbai blasts.
There should be all india economic boycott of kashmir while UPA is in power. No tourism, no buying products from kashmir, and further more every rupee of ‘jihadi development aid’ to jihad valley should be opposed tooth and nail. Why should hindu tax money go to people that are opposed to the very existence of hindus ? When the M.O.D comes to power we can settle things with more direct ways.
jiggs,
i agree, i cant wait for the all india hindu intafada against the kangis, mullah-yam, lalu, its coming believe me.
“Indian Muslims: Babar or Ram? ”
http://newindpress.com/sunday/colItems.asp?ID=IE620010313021657
hey Aryan…read this piece by Monsieur Francois Gautier.
I coudnt agree with you more.
What is happening in Jammu is actually on the lines of Intifada.
Why do you think Mama maino and the mufti’s,geelanis and other terrorists are losing sleep?
They cant swallow the bitter pill, coz HINDUS are paying them back in the same coin.
This time around HINDUS will get what they want.
Apart from the Hindu deaths, I am loving it.
jiggs,
I dont think this is going to end well right now, despite the protests the land will not be given to hindus, and there is going to be more hindu patriots being killed by the jihadi UPA. maybe things can be rectified when BJP comes to power. Dont see much to rejoice.
@Jiggs bandhu! thanx for the article…:) tis’ always a pleasure to read Monsieur Francois Gautier!
I agree with Aryan’s assertion that nothing will come out of the sacrifices made by Jammu protestors…call me cynical but if history, esp. in Indian context & ots leaders, tells us something..its this that the present day politicians, barring methink MoD, none has the politicial will to take on the separtists as well as well as their backers head-on…they would, esp. the likes of LKA, if BJP comes to power, would try to become more ‘acceptable’ to the MSM & the English chatteratti rather then go about doing whats best for the state of J-K & nation ie scrapping away Art. 370, implementing uniform civil code, waging a decisive battle against internal enemies be it radical Islamic terrorists, Maoists, Commies or Missionaries involved in proselytyzing evangelical activities, and the topmost thing: rectifying the Indian constitution so that no foreign citizen can either become the president/ prime minister or head of state. Also, one more thing needs to be fixed or brought down to its place and made accountable..the english MSM & dhimmi-media.
But alas, we all know…nothing of that sort will happen…if history is any indication!
Bring in Karan…
It is a wonder that with a politician as wise and able as Karan Singh among its senior top leaders, the Congress party and the UPA government it leads should blunder on several issues in four years of power. For a start, Karan Singh would have made an ideal President if someone in the Congress had made serious efforts to convince the Left out of its resistance to him. That he is former royalty cannot be denied, but that did not cease the growth of Madhavrao Scindia or now his son or his sister, Vasundhraraje. The Left often takes a narrow view of politics. Karan Singh’s association with temple trusts and Vedic issues automatically classifies him as “communal” in today’s blind adoption of Western political concepts that often don’t fit into the Indian context. Gandhi famously refused to view India in the constrained nation-state paradigm of the West. Our politics and our politicians need a lot of growing up.
But the fact that Karan Singh could not become President should afford opportunities to the Congress leadership to use his many talents. To be fair, Karan Singh was dispatched to convince king Gyanendra to step down. In one voice, as though it was orchestrated by top levels of the government, the newspapers attacked his mission, and questioned the sagacity of sending him. But the fact remains that as one former royal, Karan Singh could have a dialogue of equals with Gyanendra. And contrary to the very limited understanding of the press corps, Karan Singh was principally instrumental in changing the mind of Gyanendra to step down. Incidentally, there was another suggestion made by this writer at that time, which was to get the Indian Army to lean on the then Royal Nepalese Army to in turn lean on Gyanendra to step down. It may be an absolute coincidence, but that was precisely what the Indian Army did. The Union defence ministry was then ably run by Pranab Mukherjee (What would happen to this government without Pranab?), and he had the capable J.J.Singh as his army chief.
Karan Singh, but now on his own steam, has come up with strong but perhaps necessary solutions for the Amarnath land controversy. He has asked the J and K governor, N.N.Vohra, to be replaced by General J.J.Singh, currently governor of Arunachal Pradesh. And while he has ruled himself out as chairman of the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board, he has suggested retired Supreme Court chief justice A.S.Anand’s name for it. All these are eminently sensible suggestions, and it should not surprise coming from Karan Singh.
Vohra, as mentioned in an earlier piece by this writer (Commentary, “Crisis in Jammu,” 4 August 2008), has proved himself thoroughly incapable of handling the situation, and he is handicapped by his earlier association as chief negotiator in the Kashmir peace process. The fact that separatists and ordinary Kashmiris could be stirred up on a bogus issue like transfer of forty hectares of forest land for three months to the Shrine Board for construction of temporary shelters for pilgrims shows that Vohra made no success as a peacemaker. It is strange that nobody in the government, more precisely the prime minister’s office, asked to audit Vohra’s performance in the Valley before appointing him governor. And at the first sign of trouble, Vohra capitulated, and he has been lying and ruining the situation since. It says something about Vohra’s credibility, and calls to question the wisdom of those who made him governor, that one of the key demands of Jammu agitators is to get him out of the state. Indeed, that is Karan Singh’s first major demand too.
So let’s turn the question inward. Who decisively plugged for Vohra? Why? And is it the case, if Karan Singh’s suggestion for J.J.Singh is indeed accepted, that a non-military governor for Jammu and Kashmir is inconceivable till terrorism persists?
Karan Singh has also refused to embrace the lazy and ultimately damaging Congress posture of blaming the Jammu agitation on the VHP and Sangha Parivar. As Karan Singh said in a statement (the hallmark of a truthful man, unlike the vast majority of politicians who call press conferences and deny the inconvenient), Jammu was witnessing “a spontaneous movement” and “outpouring of pent-up emotions over the years”. Jammu has felt neglected under all J and K chief ministers, as too Ladakh, and any significant developments of those regions occurred long ago when Jagmohan was governor.
Being of Dogra royalty, who ruled Kashmir from Jammu, it would be natural to detect Jammu bias in Karan Singh, but he enjoys genuine goodwill across the state. After Hazratbal was freed of terrorist occupants in the early-Nineties, Karan Singh and his wife made a special visit to the Sufi shrine, and his devotion to the shrine was deep and obvious, and he had practically no security. Reporters were laying bets on the scale of reception he would get if he paid an unscheduled visit to Srinagar’s Lal Chowk. That was more than could be said for the likes of Mehbooba Mufti and Farooq Abdullah. The point is, the Congress party has a much honoured J and K politician in its leadership (although Karan Singh would rankle at such description), and he should be entrusted with bringing peace to the state.
N.V.Subramanian is Editor, NewsInsight.net.
Here is another editorial in Indian Express:
India’s identity
Posted online: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 at 0123 hrs Print Congress, BJP please note: like Shah Bano & Ayodhya, Amarnath is a national political test
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/345207.html
Here is my response:
“The kind of intellectual trangulation that the editorial classes engage in (including this editorial) is the reason why we as a country do not move forward. Pointing out that Congress has ignored BJP, BJP has returned the comliment etc. does not solve or offer a way to solve the issue. The claim that to avoid the tipping point, one needs to back off has always implied it is the Hindus who have to backoff. If you had the slightest interest and courage to propose realistic long-term solution, you could have proposed that the State Government reinsttate it’s own decision to give the Amarnath land to build temporary facilities and recall the governer. The way to solve the prblem is to undo the causes of the problem. But that kind of clarity would require stopping the intellectual gymnastics that the editorial classese engage in and greater courage and interest in solving the problems rather than in trying to come across as the evolved “secular” intellectuals. No wonder, the editorial clases have worse of an image problem than do “consultants” in business arena. There is a valid perception that both (editors and consultants) would fail miserably when put in charge of deliverying on their own advice.”
Other responses are also worth reading:
http://www.indianexpress.com/comments/345207.html
Many of the comments missed the import of pratap mehta’s piece. there were losts of solutions implict in the article, in fact the point was that there are lots of reasonable compromises. but none of those formulas matter if there is deep distrust or politicans have an incentive to forment hatred. We are stupid country, we look for magic bullet solutions to everything, but dont understand basic commonsense. Incidentally I do remember Mehta writing many pieces long ago on why the state should not get involved in the running of any religious instituion.
[...] spectacle of a New Delhi based approach to resolving the Jammu crisis over the Amarnath issue that refuses to listen to the loud and clear message emanating from [...]
It is very unfortunate that the agelong grievances of Jammuites could not be properly represented by them and redressal sought due to many extenuating circumstances.
RSS wanted to hamstring the victoty of Kashmiris by taking up the forestland transfer to shrine issue clubbed with Jammuites grievances.
To the man in the street it was a patently communal issue woven over a legally void GO!
The Supreme Court has lad down onerous condition on transfer of “forest lands” to private parties. It has alsoappointed a commission to give direction in specific cases. the said GO has disregarded them all!
Hence, the jammuites should concentrate more on the redressal of their grievances rather than an impugned order.