A
breather for the BJP
By Kedar
Nath Pandey
The
Bharatiya Janata Party has been facing
turbulent times, with the party reeling
from one shock to another right from the
unexpected defeat of the National
Democratic Alliance it led in the general
elections in April, through the loss of
the Maharashtra Assembly elections to the
tantrum thrown by the fiery sanyasin Uma
Bharti resulting in her suspension from
the party for six years. So, it must have
been a relief for the BJP when the NDA
constituents decided to toe its line on
Ayodhya at the coalition’s meet held
in Delhi.
After the
sharp reaction of some NDA members,
particularly the Telugu Desam Party and
the Janata Dal (United) to the BJP
President, Mr. L. K. Advani’s
announcement at the BJP National
Executive on October 27 that a Ram temple
would indeed be build at Ayodhya, their
falling in line at the NDA meet came as a
bit of surprise. After Mr. Venkiah Naidu
stepped down as the BJP president and the
party turned once again to its
"tallest leader" to rekindle
its political fortunes, Mr. Advani had
made it evident to everybody, including
the NDA allies, that it could return to
the Hindutva plank.
At the
National Executive, Mr. Advani had said
that the party would not compromise on
its promise to build a Ram temple at
Ayodhya, "The BJP’s growth is
reflective of the national will and
desire of crores of people of this
country that a magnificent temple,"
be constructed at the Ram Janamsthan at
Ayodhya in the place of the existing
makeshift temple," he told the
Executive that endorsed his appointment
as the new party president. Intriguingly,
he even said that "if the Vajpayee
Government had been re-elected the
construction would have started very
soon."
Anyway,
the strident note was not missed, least
of all by the BJP’s allies, which
asked for a meeting presumably to thrash
out this issue. But those expecting
fireworks at the meeting must have been
disappointed because the "secular
allies" quietly toed the BJP’s
line that a Ram mandir would be built at
Ayodhya through a negotiated settlement.
Expectedly, the BJP also toned down its
pitch at the NDA meet where it pushed its
agenda for a Ram temple but only by a
"a negotiated settlement though
dialogue between representatives of the
Hindu and Muslim communities in an
atmosphere of peace, trust and
goodwill."
So for the
moment, at least, there may be no change
in the NDA composition. In fact, the NDA
meet presided over by the Alliance
Chairman, Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, also
endorsed the BJP line on the arrest of
the Kanchi Sankarachary Sri Jayendra
Saraswati. The NDA Convenor, Mr. George
Fernandes, who has undertaken any number
of trips to Chennai to pacify the AIADMK
supremo, Ms. J. Jayalaithaa, when her
party was a constituent of the Alliance
in the 1990s, will now be coming to
Chennai to call on the Sankaracharya.
If any
question begs an answer, it is why did
parties like the Janata Dal (U), which
were raring to go at the BJP and leave an
NDA that cannot bring them the trappings
of power for now, keep a low profile?
Bihar politics may offer some answers.
Disenchanted by the Bihar strongman, Mr.
Lalu Prasad Yadav, who grabbed the
Railway portfolio in the UPA Government,
the Lok Janasakti Party (LIP) chief, Mr.
Ram Vilas Paswan, started warming up to
the JD (U) leader, Mr. Sharad Yadav, who
made a strategic appearance at the
former’s party. Of course, the
timing was significant as the Bihar
Assembly elections are barely three
months away. As expected Mr. Lalu
Yadav’s Rashtriya Janata Dal saw red
and urged the UPA Government to get rid
of Mr. Paswan from the UPA as he was
supping with a BJP ally.
For Mr.
Paswan, an alliance with the JD (U),
which still has considerable clout in
Bihar, would be very welcome. For the
Assembly elections, Mr. Paswan cannot
continue his alliance with the Congress
and the RJD as Mr. Lalu Yadav has spared
no chance to humiliate him, and the LJP
and RJD leaders have been openly trading
charges for a few months now.
But for
Mr. Paswan the problem in allying with
the JD(U) is that the latter is still an
ally of the BJP and a constituent of the
NDA. He would have pinned mush hope on
some fireworks at the NDA meet and of the
JD(U) walking out.
But that
did not happen. On the contrary, the BJP
has, in a thinly veiled call to Mr.
Paswan, invited all "anti-Lalu
forces" to unite to rid Bihar of the
RJD rule. But to do this Mr. Paswan will
have to quit the UPA Government and it is
doubtful if he is as yet ready to do so,
because there has been nothing amiss in
the way either the prime minister, Dr.
Manmohan Singh, or the Congress (I)
president, Ms Sonia Gandhi, have treated
him.
Anyway, in
the rough and tumble of Indian politics,
one cannot rule out new combinations and
permutations and three months is quite a
long period for this to happen. Even a
split in the JD(U), with Mr. Sharad Yadav
walking out cannot be ruled out.
Even as
the BJP must be contented that its lead,
even when it is out of power, it must be
taken aback by the arrest of the Kanchi
Acharya by a natural ally like the AIADMK
chief Ms Jayalalithaa.
The arrest
has got the various sadhus and sants up
in arms. But, then, nor have Dr. Manmohan
Singh or Ms Sonia Gandhi. On a two-day
tour of her constituency Rae Bareilly,
the Congress (I) chief refused to comment
on the arrest saying the matter was <I
But when
reporters said that the BJP and Hindutva
outfits were attacking her on the issue,
she smiled and said this was nothing new
as they had always attacked her on all
kinds of issues, and the more they
attacked her the more popular would she
and her party become.
It remains
to be seen what turn this case takes. But
whatever the outcome, it may have given
the BJP a chance to tell the Hindu samaj
that if any of its religious icons is in
trouble, it can always count on the BJP
to speakup for them. Senior BJP leader,
Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi called on the
Sankaracharya at the Vellore jail and
came down on the Tamil Nadu Government
for making the arrest. INAV
|
 |
Centre
must look beyond Hurriyat !
TALES OF TRAVESTY
By Dr.
Jitendra Singh
Indian
Prime Minister in Kashmir and Pakistan
Prime Minister in New Delhi! The prospect
itself carries enough potential to
generate an unusual media hype for
news-starved round-the-clock electronic
media news channels. Added to this is the
spice of news surmises predicting an
imminent breakthrough in the continuing
Kashmir imbroglio.
Much
has happened on predictable lines and yet
equally much has happened otherwise to
offer a new dimension to Kashmir related
politics. For example, while Dr Manmohan
Singh's much publicised financial package
is quite a repetition of what was also
witnessed during earlier Prime
Ministerial visits by Dr Singh's
predecessors over the last decade and a
half, the self-contradictory responses
from the Hurriyat Conference have
inadvertantly exposed the conglomerate's
duplicity and its hypocrisy much to the
benefit of Kashmir's wary masses.
Interestingly, it took the Hurriyat less
than 24 hours to turn back from its
decision to have a meeting with the Prime
Minister thus only reinforcing the
opinion that like always before, the
Hurriyat leadership had once again lived
upto its dubious reputation of taking the
diktat from Islamabad. If indeed this is
true, then how can the Kashmiri masses
expect such self-serving Kashmir
spokesmen to pursue the avowed objective
of socalled ''Azaadi'' or whatever ?
Nevertheless,
the question which will continue to be
asked is, in what way has the present
Prime Minister's visit been different? To
the magnanimous financial packages
announced during present as well as past
prime ministerial visits, the standard
response from socalled separatist groups
is that Kashmir calls for a political
rather than a financial solution. Now,
what is that elusive political
solution-----even the separatist
spokesmen are not clear or unanimous. And
by the way, can any political solution
thrive without financial or economic
viability ?
There
is a strong section of opinion within the
Valley and outside which feels that New
Delhi is unwarrantedly hooked on to the
changing whims and fancies of Hurriyat
leaders thus in the process showing scant
regard for several other political
schools of opinion represented by a wide
range of Kashmir-centric groups and
parties. For example, why should the
negotiaters from the Centre invariably
seek and go out of the way to win favour
with disgrantled Hurriyat leaders whose
following among the masses remains
untested and unauthenticated? Why can't
the Centre immediately go ahead holding
discussions with the members of the Jammu
and Kashmir Legislative Assembly who
after all represent different
constituencies of the State and enjoy the
credibility of having gone through an
election process whatever might have been
the percentage of polling in the
election? Why can't the Centre begin
deliberating on proposals offered by
representatives of displaced Kashmir
Pandit community and representatives of
1947 refugees uprooted from Pak Occupied
Kashmir ?
Unilateral
steps like Prime Minister's announcement
regarding reduction of troops in the
Valley are welcome. But can such measures
succeed if not reciprocated by the other
side ? Can Manmohan Singh's generous
gestures succeed as long as Musharraf
shows little inclination of disbanding
terrorist training camps near the LOC or
checking infiltration across the border ?
And above all, can New Delhi succeed by
refusing to look beyond the Hurriyat even
if this amounts to denigrating the
aspirations of the common man ? Can Umapathy
get back the paradise of Kashmir as
long as merchants of hell hold the sway ''Mere
Buzurgon Ne Jannat Jise Banaya Tha, Tumne
Dozakh Bana Diya Usko,,,,,,,,,,,,,,''
|
|
Conflict,
confratation, vendetta in air
From Arun Nehru
Forecasting
political events is not easy and I have for the
past three months consistently mentioned that
conflict, confrontation and vendetta is in the
'air'. Let us take stock of events in different
states and in the Center as we see the coalition
trying to govern after a fractured mandate. Tamil
Nadu is in the news and a second warrant is
issued against the Shankaracharya of Kanchi and
what can one say of the TN CM and AIDMK leader =
sadly the DMK chief also does a 'political
turnabout' after demanding the arrest of the
revered leader and is clearly feeling the
pressure = K Karunanidhi now talks of the AIDMK
being 'vindictive'! The reality is that a
deliberate vote bank game is being played and the
results are becoming negative as the Congress
softens their stand and the PM makes a statement
but Sonia Gandhi maintains a deafening silence.
Those wishing to 'hide' their thoughts refer to
the rule of law and this is pathetic as everyone
knows at the flaws of the system as it exists and
sadly little is done by anyone to effect changes
and reform the system. We have seen several times
in the past false cases being registered by
political opponents, witnesses changing
statements as we witness in the Best Bakery
affair[political pressure?] and cases eventually
being dismissed after many years for 'lack of
evidence' = look at the cost of litigation and
the years it takes to get a decision [over a
decade in many cases] and sadly those in
governance use advantage of these loopholes to
inflict punishment on their foes = retribution
comes and only a few years ago the DMK was
defeated by the AIDMK after J Jayalalitha was
humiliated and jailed and then the AIDMK was
defeated in the Lok Sabha election as K
Karunanidhi was literally dragged of and arrested
and attempts were made to muzzle the media. Look
at the hundreds of cases generated, the cost to
the public, the harassment to friends and
relations of those accused and what has happened
in these cases? The politics of vendetta has
again taken root and the Shankaracharya is
targeted and both the AIDMK/DMK are involved and
sadly the past is being revived as anti=Brahmin
sentiments are being fuelled for vote bank
politics. The case will go on and eventually the
rule of law will prevail but what is at issue
here is not the 'case' but the methods and timing
used to arrest and humiliate the religious
leader..
As I write this
article there is news that the main accused in
the murder case has stated that he was 'tortured'
by the police to implicate the Kanchi
Shankracharya ! There is something very wrong
with the system when events like this can take
place and a trial by the media is conducted
before when the most 'preliminary' evidence has
not been effectively checked = this is not the
rule of law and very drastic changes are
necessary to change the system of criminal
investigation and besides the retribution in
terms of political punishment at the 'ballot' all
political beings including officials and police
personnel involved in fabrication and coercion
must be punished.
We often talk of
the rule of law but observe events in Bihar where
the Law Courts have made consistent efforts to
restore the rule of law but sadly kidnapping,
murder and extortion continues and many a leader
is 'elected' whilst in jail! Look at the recent
judgements of the High Court involving jails in
Bihar and can anything be done unless the
political parties take the initiative = Bihar
suffers from Mafia rule and is the situation any
better in Uttar Pradesh where district after
district is controlled by criminal elements.
Public funds and resources are deployed in
security arrangements to protect the leaders from
each other = is this the rule of law?
We witness a
business boom over the past few years and this
will continue as India becomes the 'service
center' of the world and as hurtle towards super
power status we must pay attention to increased
criminality as 'money' plays a greater role in
elective politics. The cost of elections have
exploded from a few lakhs to a few crores in the
last two decades and little is done by any
political party to control this menace. The
ground reality is that politics has changed for
the worst = the Congress has been blamed for
'dynastic' politics but look at the regional
forces in each state where 'family' interests
dominate the political landscape and this has
nothing to do with political power but everything
to do with keeping the family 'silver' within the
family = the political landscape is dotted by
'dynastic' control and why blame poor Lalu Yadav
and Rabri Devi along with her brothers for
controlling events in Bihar and creating a
winning Yadav/Minority combination = there is
Mulayam [son and brothers], Farooq and Mufti in
J&K[son and daughter], Karunanidhi [sons and
nephews] in TN = the family of NTR in AP , Bal
Thakeray[son and nephew] in Maharashtra,
Chauthala and sons in Haryana, Badal and son in
Punjab = the list is endless and now from the
Central and state level, family control is being
extended to individual seats! Those who are part
of the system cannot reform it and sadly everyone
will issue statements respecting the 'rule of
law' but few will take the initiative to reform
the system as it conflicts with their interests.
Vote banks and muscle are being created by
criminal and financial interests and look into
any state and see where the local contracts are
going for development work and you will find the
answers! Few will disturb the system and there
will be occasional Mafia wars to disturb the
peace but sadly as we grow economically so will
the criminality and its influence on political
power.
|
National
Consumerism Promotion Policy
By Bharat Jhunjhunwala
The Draft National
Environment Policy says: "The proximate
drivers of environmental degradation are
population growth, technology and consumption
choices, and poverty." Are these really four
different problems? Perhaps consumerism lies at
the root of all.
Population becomes
an 'environmental problem' when every person
wants to ride a scooter. Then CO2 is released in
large qualities, which pollutes the environment.
More land is used for making highways and less
green belt remains. But if a large population
rides bicycles then these problems would vanish.
Large number of human beings can live with
limited resources like ants in their anthill. But
we promote consumerism and allow advertisements
that encourage every person to ride a scooter.
Thus population becomes a 'problem'. Reduction of
population is not a solution to environment
either. If the number of persons is less but
everyone wants to ride a car instead of a scooter
then the environment will worsen as is happening
in the rich countries. On the one hand they are
worried about dwindling population, on the other
hand about environmental degradation. Less
population and environmental degradation can go
together. There is no limit to the consumption
that men can indulge in. Lower population, if at
all, is a solution only in conjunction with less
consumption. Technologies are both a solution as
well as a problem. We have the technology of
bicycle as well as of car. However, we have
adopted the technology of car because we have
taken more consumption to be the objective of
human existence. Unclean technology is not the
problem. Unclean technologies like burning of
forests have existed since time immemorial. The
real problem is production of goods by unclean
technologies which are cost-effective. Economists
assume that maximization of production will lead
to the maximization of welfare though the two can
be contradictory to each other. Moreover, the use
of clean technologies will not solve the problem
if consumerism rules the day. Clean technology of
Euro-certification will certainly reduce the
pollution from a single car. But that would be
nullified if the number of cars on the road
multiplies ten times. Ten Euro-certified cars
will create more pollution than one non-certified
one. Clean technologies are meaningful only if
consumption is reduced along with.
Poverty too is a
result of consumerism. Much milk is produced in
the village but children of the village do not
get to drink it. Parents want to buy a TV hence
they sell the milk to the dairy. To take another
example, the villagers are poor because they do
not have enough land for cultivation. The land is
reserved for the forests so that the environment
is stable. Our city dwellers want to travel in
cars. They want that rural people plant forests
to absorb the CO2 produced by them. As a result
less land is available for cultivation and that
leads to poverty. There would remain no need to
create CO2 sinks if city dwellers do not use
cars. The village people can then become rich
like the people of Pataliputra after cutting down
the dense jungles of the Ganges basin.
Moreover, the
environment will not be stabilized even if
poverty is removed. The poor farmer is today
overexploiting his land because he has less of
it. But the rich farmers are also overexploiting
land to make more profits in the cultivation of
grapes, sugarcane and chilies.
The one central
problem of environment is consumerism. The NEP
accepts this: "Perverse production and
consumption practices are the immediate causes of
environmental degradation." It was expected,
then, that the issue of consumerism would be put
in the center of the NEP. Alas! Not so.
The NEP escapes
from doing so in a strange way. After the above
quote, the NEP continues: "but an exclusive
focus on these aspects alone is insufficient to
prevent environmental harm." That seems to
imply that the NEP recognizes the centrality of
the problem of consumerism but wants to deal with
it along with other issues. But after having said
so, the issue of consumerism disappears from the
text of the NEP entirely. The focus wholly
remains on other issues. The unsaid objective of
the NEP, therefore, becomes to promote
consumerism by recognizing the problem but
choosing to do nothing about it. An example will
clarify the matter. The crop of a farmer was
deteriorating. He though it would not be
sufficient to give water to the crop. It was also
necessary to spray insecticide. He sprayed
insecticide but did not irrigate the field. The
result was that the crop died. The NEP will
suffer from the same fate.
Ignoring the
problem of consumerism permeates the text of the
NEP. The first objective of the NEP is said to be
"To protect and conserve critical ecological
systems and resources… which are essential
for life-support, livelihoods, economic growth,
and a broad conception of human well-being."
But the Ministry makes a volte face is
translating these objectives into principles,
where it is said "The right to development
must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet
developmental and environmental needs of present
and future generations." It is not said that
right to 'well-being' should be fulfilled.
The NEP has
recognized the traditional knowledge of the
people, which is laudable. But the Ministry's
conception of 'traditional knowledge' is limited
to knowledge of herbs, water harvesting
technologies, etc. Our tradition has connected
well-being with environment beautifully. The
carrier of goddess Lakshmi is said to be the owl,
that of Ganesha is the rat and that of Durga is
the tiger. The cow is venerated as mother. Giving
roti to the dog is said to beget good health.
Such social technologies have a twofold impact.
On the one hand they led to affection towards
these animals. On the other hand man's attention
was drawn to the world beyond the material domain
and thus away from consumerism.
Plants were
conserved similarly. Amla tree is worshiped on
Amla Navami, marriage of tulsi or neem trees is
made, the banana is worshipped for pleasing the
Jupiter planet and Pipal for pleasing Saturn.
This traditional knowledge should have been
incorporated in the NEP.
The Ministry
should form a committee of Hindus, Muslims,
Christians, Buddhists and Marxist atheists to
work out method of linking the environment with
well-being. The Independence Day can be
celebrated as 'Mango Tree Day' and Gandhi's
Birthday can be celebrated as a 'Goat Day'. A
system of cultural audit of TV serials and
advertisements should be made so that creation of
new wants is discouraged. Ten percent of the area
or time of all advertisements should be reserved
for providing information about such
environment-friendly social technologies.
The NEP will be
meaningful only when efforts to contain
consumerism are incorporated. Otherwise it will
only lead to worsening of the environment by the
use of ten Euro cars instead of one non-certified
one.
|
|
Troop
withdrawal
Is it really a
signal for peace in Kashmir?
By J N Raina
Troops have
started pulling out from the beleaguered state of
Jammu and Kashmir, considered a healthy sign of
improvement in the security scenario. But will
people heave an everlasting sigh of relief,
following Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's
announcement to withdraw troops during winter?
Will such a unilateral decision have a salutary
effect on the psyche of Kashmiris, who have been
struggling between life and death during the past
15 years of Pakistan-sponsored militancy? It is
the human soul that has been battered in the
valley, and needs immense healing touch.
When Manmohan
Singh landed in the Elysian valley, with a Rs
24,000 crore economic package, thus offering an
olive branch to Kashmiris, he was greeted by the
terrorists' gunfire, just a little away from the
venue of his public rally in Srinagar on November
17. The terrorists remained engaged with the
security forces in an encounter for two hours,
leaving two militants dead.
The message is
obvious. Perhaps this was Manmohan Singh's first
'experiment' (with truth). However, he gave a
right message to Pakistan and its surrogates in
the valley that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral
part of India.
The remark was
astoundingly irksome to PDP Chief Mehbooba Mufti,
daughter of Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed,
who is reported to have said," It was
Manmohan Singh's compulsion as Prime
Minister". On the contrary, Dr Farooq
Abdullah, either as Chief Minister or National
Conference president has been shouting at the top
of his voice and was never tired of saying that
Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India.
Manmohan Singh
also rejected Pakistan President General Pervez
Musharraf's Kashmir formula while addressing a
press conference in Srinagar, saying, " Any
proposal which smacks of further division is not
acceptable".
The Prime Minister
has taken a rare decision, to withdraw troops,
rather 'risky', as he has himself admitted, but
will there be quid pro quo from Pakistan, and
will it dismantle' terrorist infrastructure' in
PoK and stop cross-border terrorism?
These are some of
the vital issues, which are needed to be
addressed to seriously, before any meaningful
dialogue begins with Pakistan. After all, talks
have to be purposeful. Parleys cannot be held in
isolation under the Damocles sword, but in a
salubrious atmosphere.
So be it. Will the
Prime Minister's soothing remarks on Kashmir---
we want to reach out to the hearts and minds of
the Kashmiri people--- marginalize the
separatists' voice, who want to keep the Kashmir
issue alive?
Primarily, why was
it essential to deploy Army in a big way in
Kashmir in 1989-90? Which forces were responsible
for creating havoc and near anarchy in Kashmir,
making it a 'failed' State?
Manmohan Singh has
described the pruning of troops as 'experiment',
saying ' we have taken some risks, but they are
not unacceptable risks'. Whether he will be
successful in conducting this 'risky experiment',
only time will tell. But gauging the ground
situation, the reality is something different.
In winter,
infiltration routes become snow-bound in Kashmir;
it is time, when mercenaries 'relax' and lie low,
but indulge in sporadic terrorist violence on
instructions from across the LoC.
The real test of
the 'risky' experiment will come to surface only
during the next summer. Recent reports suggest
that frontline militant outfits, including the
Lashkar-e-Toiba have vowed to keep the cauldron
boiling in Kashmir till their 'goal' is achieved.
They have even rejected General Pervez
Musharraf's so-called Kashmir formula, broadly
envisaging division of the undivided state of
Jammu and Kashmir on geographical, religious and
ethnic lines. It is quite repugnant to India.
India has rejected
any third party intervention in redrawing Jammu
and Kashmir map, intriguingly suggested by
Musharraf, that the two countries consider
options of identifying some regions of Kashmir on
both sides of the LoC, demilitarising them and
grant them 'independent status' or 'joint
control' or put them under 'U N control'. The
Musharraf formulation is nothing but a call for
third party mediation, thereby trying to bluff
India and its leadership.
India has
reiterated its assertion that it was not going to
'brook' any sort of mediation to resolve
bilateral issues. Musharraf has been reminded of
his commitment he had made to former Prime
Minister A B Vajpayee that Pakistan will not
allow its territory to be used for terrorist
activities directed against India in Kashmir. It
had also assured that cross-border infiltration
would come to an end. But what is the end result?
Such activities are continuing on the LoC as well
as within the valley.
Only recently, the
National Conference patron, former Chief Minister
Dr Farooq Abdullah and his son, party chief Omar
Abdullah had a providential escape when an IED
blast was triggered off. Some local elements in
the security set up are being blamed. Their link
with the hardcore Jamait-e-Islami has been
established. The day the Prime Minister announced
troop withdrawal, six people, four of them
belonging to a single family, were killed by
militants belonging to the Hizbul Mujahideen.
The real impact of
troop reduction will be visible during the coming
summer when snow will start melting and the
mercenaries--- estimated to be nearly 3000---
waiting in their wings in PoK, will make a
sojourn' to Kashmir. If such clandestine
operations will continue, what purpose will be
served by withdrawing troops? Do we want another
Kargil to happen? The scars of Kargil are still
fresh in our minds. Really, Dr Singh has taken a
great risk, and who knows what turn it will take
in the near future.
Reduction of
troops in Jammu and Kashmir was Pakistan's
long-standing demand. Our petulant neighbour
should now follow suit and dismantle the
terrorists' launching pads in Pakistan. It can in
real term help in building mutual trust and
confidence between the two nations. Withdrawal of
troops by India can provide more leeway to
negotiate with Pakistan and with the alienated
sections of the Kashmiri society. But only if
Pakistan will sincerely respond by smashing its
terror mills.
The Army was
inducted in the valley because of cross-border
terrorism; because of ethnic cleansing, forcing
3.5 lakh Kashmiri Hindus to leave their ancestral
land, when several hundred hapless people were
butchered by Afghan Mujahideen in a brutal
manner; when lakhs of people took out processions
in Srinagar and other principal towns of the
valley throughout that nightmarish night on
January 19, 1990, shouting slogans like ' we want
azadi; we want azadi etc'; when the JKLF issued
liberation call on Aug 1, 1988, with the hurling
of bombs on the Central Telegraph office at
Exchange road and the Srinagar Club on the river
bund. It is another question that Pakistan later
decimated JKLF and instead pampered the
pro-Pakistan Hizbul Mujahideen, an offshoot of
the Jamait-e-Islami, led by Sayeed Ali Shah
Geelani, who wants total merger of the valley
with Pakistan.
But neither India
nor Pakistan will agree to the demand for
independence. It is just a section of people who
are seeking independence. Some 'vested' interests
and foreign forces are supporting them. Pakistan
has to shut down its 'terrorist factory' in PoK.
It is in its own interest.
Now the experiment
of engineering proxy war in India has not paid.
Rather terrorism has recoiled on Pakistan itself.
Terrorism has percolated down to the grass-root
level, and Pakistani authorities are not sure if
militancy will come to an end there. Major
General Shaukat Sultan, the Chief spokesman for
Pakistan Army, is quite bewildered. 'Tactically,
we are getting hold of people here, here, and
here, but then what is the end?' His remarks
reflect a growing frustration within Pakistan, an
important ally of the U S in the war on terror.
'No one is sure what policies, if any, would end
support for Islamic militancy', he bemoans.
The growing role
of Al Qaeda cannot be minimized. They are
providing support to Kashmiri militants for
'liberation' of Kashmir. Al Qaeda is independent
and a champion of 'global Islamic insurgency' and
in that sense it is different from a terrorist
organization. It poses a different kind of a
threat. Pakistan has no control over it.
According to a survey, only 16 per cent of
Pakistanis support campaign against terrorism.
Over 50 per cent of people feel the joint
campaign is aimed at the U S desire to control
Middle East oil and to dominate the world. The
Americans see the Muslim countries very hostile
to them (Syndicate Features)
|
|
|
