|
EDITORIAL Jammu-Kashmir Liberation Front leader Amanullah Khan's assertion that Mohammad Ali Jinnah was in favour of an independent Jammu and Kashmir is a cruel joke. It is a travesty of history. According to a New Delhi newspaper Mr Khan has contended that the founder of Pakistan had never opposed the option of a Kashmir independent of India and Pakistan. He has challenged his critics to produce evidence to the effect that Jinnah had described J&K as the jugular vein of Pakistan before his death on September 11, 1948. According to the JKLF leader, "as President of the All-India Muslim League the Quaid (Jinnah) declared in his policy statements of June 17, July 11 and July 30, 1947 that the Indian princely states had every right to declare independence in addition to their right to join India or Pakistan." He has recalled Jinnah's meetings with the Kashmiri leaders on July 11, 1947. In these get-togethers, according to Mr Khan, the Quaid-i-Azam (as Jinnah is referred to in the neighbouring country) had said the Maharaja of Kashmir . . . .....more The plight of a resident of this region who has been released along with a few other Indian prisoners from Pakistani jails makes a heart-rending reading. According to a report in this newspaper he has been brutally treated to the extent that he is unable to walk. Quite understandably, his relatives are shocked. In fact, anyone who believes in respect for human dignity will be upset by such cruel display of brusque authority. One will notice that it is a universal phenomenon to treat imprisoned rival soldiers especially with an iron hand. One has come....more |
|
By Arun Nehru We are going into election season and there are several political questions which need clarification for the future and I think it is time to reflect on the emerging future patterns in terms of coalition patterns, the trends on political fortunes of the major contenders along with leadership patterns for the future. Little happens in politics by a 'plan' [very similar to the stock market] but it is interesting to see the changing equations as we peep into the future. The first thing we should accept is the fact.....more Sadhbhavna
benefits By Prof Barkat Singh Azad The Army which was once considered the bullet shooting force is doing yeoman services to the people. The role of army is to defend the borders of their country so that no external power can endanger the sovereignty of the nation. The army always tries to keep watch on the nefarious designs of the enemy so that no attack is made, no intrusion takes place and the people of the country may live in peace and harmony. The Indian army while fulfilling all these traditional duties efficiently ......more By Dr K S Parthasarathy Polonium which Madame Curie discovered over a century ago, and named after her motherland, is currently in the news for the wrong reasons. The bizarre story of the fatal polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko an ex-Russian spy in England reminds us of smokers, the other not so ....more |
||||||||
EDITORIAL Jammu-Kashmir Liberation Front leader Amanullah Khan's assertion that Mohammad Ali Jinnah was in favour of an independent Jammu and Kashmir is a cruel joke. It is a travesty of history. According to a New Delhi newspaper Mr Khan has contended that the founder of Pakistan had never opposed the option of a Kashmir independent of India and Pakistan. He has challenged his critics to produce evidence to the effect that Jinnah had described J&K as the jugular vein of Pakistan before his death on September 11, 1948. According to the JKLF leader, "as President of the All-India Muslim League the Quaid (Jinnah) declared in his policy statements of June 17, July 11 and July 30, 1947 that the Indian princely states had every right to declare independence in addition to their right to join India or Pakistan." He has recalled Jinnah's meetings with the Kashmiri leaders on July 11, 1947. In these get-togethers, according to Mr Khan, the Quaid-i-Azam (as Jinnah is referred to in the neighbouring country) had said the Maharaja of Kashmir should think not only of his benefit but also that of the State's Muslim majority. It was not in the interest of the Hindu ruler to join Pakistan and the Kashmiri Muslims to opt for a Hindu-majority India. Therefore, Jinnah visualised an independent J&K with which Pakistan could enter into a mutually beneficial agreement. "How could a man like Jinnah say two contradictory things at the same time?" Mr Khan has wondered. He has expressed the view that crediting Jinnah with the "jugular vein" theory was "a concoction by those wanting to misuse the respect in which the Pakistanis held their Father of the Nation." Jinnah must be turning in his grave at this crude attempt to delink him from his two-nation theory. He might not have used the expression "jugular vein" but he has been quoted as having remarked: "Kashmir is in my pocket." In any case his actions spoke louder. It is a matter of record that Jinnah had visited the State but his was a desperate bid to woo the Kashmiri leaders. He had met an ideological foe to reckon with in Sheikh Abdullah who found no merit at all in Jinnah's penchant for building a theocratic state. It was not for nothing that the Sheikh had converted the Muslim Conference into the National Conference. There is enough contemporary evidence to establish that Jinnah's "mission Kashmir" had flopped. Mr Khan has also said --- perhaps the first person to do so --- that Jinnah had advised Maharaja Hari Singh to balance his aspirations with those of the local Muslim majority and stay aloof. Mr Khan himself has given no proof in this behalf. Unless he does that he is liable to be blamed for having put words in Jinnah's mouth. For, it is only too well known that the Maharaja was keen to maintain his independence after the emergence of India and Pakistan as separate dominions. With this objective in view he had offered the Standstill Agreement to both India and Pakistan. While New Delhi had looked the other way Pakistan lost no time in accepting the Maharaja's offer. However, instead of honouring its commitment Pakistan triggered the tribal raids on the State through Muzaffarabad with the evil intention of forcibly grabbing it. Even then India had not intervened leaving the issue to be decided between Pakistan and the Maharaja. The Maharaja had turned to India when he found himself stabbed in the back by Pakistan and signed the Instrument of Accession (the National Conference as the State's No 1 political organisation had acquiesced in the decision). It was only after this that the Army had flown in to protect the State, its land and the people. If Jinnah was indeed keen that J&K should remain independent why had his country dishonoured the Standstill Agreement? Why had he sent armed marauders to play havoc with the lives of innocent people of the State? Mr Khan is right to the extent that Jinnah wanted the erstwhile princes to have their say about the future of their territories. But it is to be noted that he has not made this comment specifically with respect to Maharaja of J&K. He can't be oblivious that Jinnah was not prepared to concede the same right to Maharaja Hari Singh which is also proved by subsequent happenings. Mr Khan is an extremely well-read person. It is possible, therefore, that he has twisted the historical developments by design. The proponents of "a united, secular and independent Jammu and Kashmir" like him are seeing a chance for them after Pakistan has categorically stated that it had never claimed J&K as its integral part. It is ironical that they are losing their focus while Pakistan is correcting its. One hopes that in the days to come the JKLF leader does not tell us that Jinnah was actually kept in the dark by leaders who had ruled Pakistan in his name in the turbulent later half of 1947. The plight of a resident of this region who has been released along with a few other Indian prisoners from Pakistani jails makes a heart-rending reading. According to a report in this newspaper he has been brutally treated to the extent that he is unable to walk. Quite understandably, his relatives are shocked. In fact, anyone who believes in respect for human dignity will be upset by such cruel display of brusque authority. One will notice that it is a universal phenomenon to treat imprisoned rival soldiers especially with an iron hand. One has come across examples galore in this behalf in Iraq. The people in the United States, who pride themselves in being constituents of the world's most powerful democracy, have been angered and anguished by the beastly manner in which their soldiers have treated their Iraqi counterparts as if they were caged animals. Chaining prisoners is inhuman. To do so after stripping them is an outright insult to humanity. They are already in dread after their arrest. It should not surprise anyone that many of them develop neurological disorders and suffer from memory loss. By all means they should be subjected to the judicial scrutiny. Any other method of dealing with them is grossly unfair. The way Pakistani prison authorities have behaved lends credence to reports that they are wilfully denying the presence of Indian men in uniform in their precincts while torturing them. How should we behave in such situation? Should we regret that we set free about one lakh of them after securing their surrender in Bangladesh?
|
||||||||||