Your Search Results

Letter to the Editor – HC verdict

Comment first! »

Sir, Justice Nisar Ahmad Kakroo of the Jammu Wing of State High Court has pronounced a historical judgment directing the state government to treat Doda, Poonch migrants like Kashmir migrants. (DE Nov 30).

The judgment has not only humanitarian but also political dimensions by inference. In the first place the honourable high court has termed the strife affected persons as “migrants” and not “internally displaced persons”, which has been the plea of the people who were forced out of the valley. Secondly, the honourable court has recognized that the “migrants” were forced to flee their native places owing to threat to their person like killing, kidnapping, rape, molestation and vandalizing. The honourable court has directed the state government to treat the “migrants” from these two districts in the same way it treats the “migrants” from the volley. In other words the honourable court means to say that the reasons for the dislocation of the civil population in the two districts of Jammu region are precisely the same as in the case of the “migrants” of Kashmir valley. This means the honourable court has once and for all times rejected the propaganda of the official and non official quarters that the IDPs from the valley were seduced by Jagmohan into leaving their home and hearth – a canard which almost every citizen of the valley has taken as the gospel truth.

The honourable high court has unveiled the truth and not minced words. This judgment is a historical and valuable document for the valley IDPs. K.N. Pandita.

Letter to the Editor – New thinking

Comment first! »

Sir, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq’s paper ’ New thinking on Kashmir’ (DE 24 Nov.) is a bundle of contradictions.

Kashmir’s independent existence came to an end with external dominance in 1339. Amity and tolerance among the people were its first casualty. Kashmir’s independent existence was re-established on 1947 after a lapse of six centuries. Four decades later, Kashmir majority, trounced by external elements, willingly but sadistically pioneered a movement under the rubric of faith actually for re-enslavement. If Mirwaiz is talking of history then he can recollect that for half a century Kashmiris waged a successful freedom struggle against the autocratic rule and then acceded to the Indian Union. If the accession is farcical and does not represent the will of the majority, then the freedom struggle of half a century, too, was a big farce and the autocratic ruling house should be re-installed. Pakistan has been left out in numerous agreements concluded between Kashmir leadership and New Delhi because in 1947, Kashmir popular leadership approached Mr. Jinnah with a formula for accession which he rejected outright asserting “Kashmir is in my pocket”.

The eleven point list of demands proposed by Mirwaiz makes no mention of elimination of terrorist activities in Kashmir while exhorting New Delhi to withdraw the bulk of Indian troops from Kashmir. Is Mirwaiz sure that withdrawal of his security cover and of other members of Hurriyat including Ali Shah Geelani and a host of dissident leaders will not put their lives in danger? Ghani Lone had rejected the secuariaty cover. Mirwaiz did speak of his grandfather exiled from the valley in 1947 but chose to be silent on the killing of his father. In the context of his plan of “independent states of Kashmir” did the Mirwaiz, during his meeting with General Musharraf, ask his host if Pakistan was ready to withdraw her troops and paramilitaries from Northern Areas in case India agreed to withdraw troops from Kashmir?

I don’t think what Mirwaiz has said is in any way “new thinking”. It is the same retrograde thinking. However, the paper does give a peep into his confused mind, and he must be in all seriousness ruminating the immortal words of the bard: “To be or not to be, that is the question”. K.N. Pandita.