Mediation only after a clear line is drawn Part-I
By Daya Sagar
Some people have opined that after 8 July, 2016 an enviroment similar to 2010 has emerged in J&K worth taking an all party meeting on ‘Kashmir’ by the Prime Minister. But the question that need to be answered is that do such meetings rise above political controversies, bring peace for the common man of J&K. The suggestion has come from Ghulam Nabi Azad while addressing the Rajay Sabha on Monday.
In 2010, UPA-II led Government of India had sent a three-member interlocutor team headed by journalist Dileep Padgaonkar had academician Radha Kumar, and former Information Commissioner M. M. Ansari as members. As has been revealed from their report 2011 the three-member team was asked to extensively tour J&K over its 12 months term. So surely GOI expected the team to work as full timers. But going by the quality of the contents of the Interlocutor’s report (IRs report ) it was opined by me that the team has not stood to the expectations of the common man as well as to the terms of reference made to the team by GOI .
The final report (12th Oct 2011 ) appears to have been drafted based on the half information as well as pre-set notions. Some could even infer that like many others intellectual / politicians/ even some in the media the interlocutors were `more under the influence of the viewpoints promoted over the years by some Kashmir Valley groups leaders /politicians. No doubt for this only interlocutors can not be accused. Delhi leaders too have very less cared for contesting or issuing clarifications regarding the information and opinions cultivated by anti elements concerning accession 1947, Article 370 of Indian Constitution, J&K Constitution, State Flag and Delhi Agreement ( even arrest of Sheikh Abdullah 1953 and his reincarnation as CM in 1975 ). Claims and issues raised are more based on statements & promises claimed to have been made by Jawahar Lal Nehru and the ‘government’ of his times . So, any one would get more carried by the information and logics that have remained uncontested all these years even by GOI. So the interlocutors cannot be accused for getting carried with valley centric ideologies, it could have happened unknowingly or within the scope of the information and ideologies the “experts” had remained exposed..
It was after more than seven months that Ministry of Home Affairs uploaded the report on its website on 24th May 2012,and that too without any comments. Among other things in the report (1) Pakistan Occupied parts of J&K had been referred as Pakistan Administered areas of J&K State (2) and it had been suggested that Parliament will make no laws applicable to the State unless it relates to the country’s internal and external security and its vital economic interest, especially in the areas of energy and access to water resources (Executive Summary-V page-6 Political Component: Centre-State Relations ). No “considering” Home Minister would have let such report go public without taking notice /care of such references ( where in even the subjects of Foreign Affairs and Communication too had been excluded ). One could even infer that MOHA GOI had not read the report before putting on the web site. Such like approach and actions of GOI too confirm that GOI has all these years handled JK affairs not that seriously.
The report is still alive since it has not been so far acted upon, neither by UPA-II nor by NDA-II.
A team that had Radha Kumar and Dileep Padgaonkar as members was supposed to have meaningful researcher’s approach. Opinions could differ. But when it is the question of the quality of the ‘thesis’ one has every right to comment .Not only this, in the IRs report even some important references, statement of facts and recommendations are incomplete or wrong . Even if such recommendations are accepted, many critical recommendations are not practically workable. The quality of the contents, at places, even demonstrates that the report has been prepared under the influence of tailored facts / references / suggestions . At places recommendations are contradicting. UPA-II government took the report casually and has provided opportunity to many worth quoting the report to their ‘likes & dislike’ against the interests of India. Let UPA-II Government take the report out of the shelf and accept or reject the report . to be continued
( Daya Sagar is a Sr Journalist and a social activist can be reached at [email protected]).