BLUNT BUTCHER
PART-I
JAMMU: Kashmir’s so-called mainstream got convulsions over conferment of Padma Vibushan to Jagmohan, the two times Governor of Jammu and Kashmir. In a fit of rage and anger, the leaders, cutting across their party affiliations, issued nasty statements, questioning the decision of Narendra Modi led BJP Government. Two of the accusations-Gawakadal killings and forced exodus of Kashmiri Pandits-dominated the sinister list of charges levelled against the man, who is contrary to Kashmir, revered by the people of Jammu and Ladakh.
Ironically, the renewed tirade against Jagmohan was spearheaded by none other than the National Conference, which abandoned its constitutional obligations, handed over the State (in this case Kashmir) virtually to Jihadis and deserted the Valley for good, leaving behind trail of destruction and bloodshed. Due to inaction of the National Conference Government, the Valley had almost reached a flash-point. Today, or even earlier, when Kashmiri leaders are holding Jagmohan responsible for what happened on Gawakadal Bridge in Srinagar on 20th January, they are conveniently ignoring that he was appointed as the Governor that very day. Even before having touched the skies of the State, how could he have engineered the killings? By putting blame on him, they are (and have successfully provided) providing a shield to the then administration, especially the police hierarchy from top to bottom, which could have deliberately created a situation where in 50 persons lost their lives. After all, General Zia-ul-Haq’s Op TOPAC envisaged all this…lot many killings, harassing Indian symbols, bringing senior officers and politicians into the fold of so-called Jihad etcetera. Despite over two and half decades, one wonders why this important aspect missed the attention of the governments. The 20th January incident needed a high level probe, not because the image of Jagmohan was maligned but because it turned out as a turning point in Kashmir terrorism after the release of terrorists in lieu of Rubaya Sayeed’s release. Those were the crucial months when many in the top level of the State administration had developed a sort of sympathy with the cause marauders were espousing.
How could Farooq Abdullah take such a strong stance over the appointment of Jagmohan as the Governor? He had himself eulogised him as a dynamic Governor with commitment to development in the earlier stint publicly and remarked, “If he (Jagmohan) ever fights elections, he will win hands down”. Farooq Abdullah’s campaign against Jagmohan vitiated further the charged atmosphere in the Valley. In the words of Jagmohan (which he wrote to Rajiv Gandhi on 21st April 1991) 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 19th January, 1990, there was a total mental surrender. Even prior to the day (8th December, 1989) of Dr. Rubaiye Sayeed’s kidnapping, when the eagle of terrorism swooped the State with full fury, 1,600 violent incidents, including 351 bomb blasts had taken place in eleven months. Then between 1st January and 19th January, 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 on 22nd November, 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 of authority”.
These are few of the many questions every compatriot would like to know from Farooq Abdullah and his die-hard supporters who keep meddling in murkier waters whenever the dark period of Kashmir in January 1990 or the forced exodus of Kashmiri Pandits is discussed. They conveniently hoodwink the public opinion by spilling venom and speaking lies to cover up their misdeeds and abject surrender to ‘Mujahids’. Some of these leaders had even disowned to be the members of National Conference through paid advertisements.
To be concluded.
