Hari OM
National
Commission for Minorities chairman Wajahat Habibullah was in Srinagar
on Sunday, 17 June, to take part in a seminar on “Jammu and Kashmir
The
truth is that the CDR has been working for the separation of Jammu and Kashmir from the Indian
constitutional framework. It, like the Kashmiri leaders of all hues, believes
that Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory, that New Delhi has brought
Jammu and Kashmir under the ambit of various Central laws and institutions by
questionable means, that New Delhi has willfully eroded the special status of
Kashmir, that New Delhi has to “assuage the hurt feelings of the alienated
Kashmiri people” (read Muslims) by accepting all of their demands, and that the
solution to the Kashmir problem has to be such as is acceptable to both
Pakistan and the Kashmiri people.
As
for Mr. Wajahat Habibullah, he has been advocating the division of Jammu and
Kashmir into five geographical (read religious) zones, and the creation of five
regional assemblies - one each for the plain areas of Jammu Pradesh, hilly and
mountainous areas of Jammu Pradesh, Shia-majority Kargil district,
Buddhist-majority Leh district, and Sunni-majority Kashmir.
Mr.
Habibullah was one of the main speakers at the CDR seminar. Given his previous
record, it was expected that he would speak the language of Kashmiri
separatists and vouch for a solution that not only renders the Armed Forces
Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and Public Safety Act (PSA) ineffective for all
practical purposes, but also enables the people to enjoy an independent status
with both India and Pakistan sharing sovereignty in Jammu and Kashmir, which is
legitimately Indian. He lived up to these expectations.
Speaking
about the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Public Safety Act, he said:
“I personally believe that AFSPA should be done away with. The Government of India
is working on a model to frame rules that would govern the AFSPA as so far we
have no rules to govern the controversial Act. A clause in the AFSPA even
surpasses the powers of Prime Minister and President of India. There is a
clause that a soldier can shoot without seeking orders from the superiors. This
clause even exceeds the powers of two top dignitaries”.
Regarding
the PSA, he said, “It is a matter (revocation) to be resolved by Jammu and Kashmir
Government. The Act was passed in 1982 by the Jammu and Kashmir Government. The Government
of India can’t interfere in it as it is a state Act. People demanding scrapping
of this Act should approach the Jammu
and Kashmir Government”.
This
is fairly obvious that the Minorities Commission chairman, like Kashmiri
leaders, both “mainstream” and separatist, wants these two Acts to be thrown
out root and branch. In other words, he wants the Army, paramilitary forces and
state police to fight secessionism with their hands tied behind their backs,
and suffer at the hands of the secessionists. He wants unbridled freedom for
those in Kashmir who hate and despise India
and everything Indian, including Indian laws, and want a dispensation
independent of India .
Yet
Mr. Habibullah continues to hold a constitutional post in New Delhi . Moreover, the Congress-led UPA
Government had appointed him first as Chief Information Commissioner and then
chairman, National Commission for Minorities, while knowing well that he is
biased towards one community’s misplaced aspirations, and pro-separatist.
Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh even appointed him as his emissary so that he could
speak in the Working Group on Centre-State Relations and persuade the members
of this Working Group to divide our Jammu and Kashmir into five communal zones
and help the votaries of Greater Kashmir accomplish what they wanted:
Establishment of Greater Kashmir comprising Kashmir and Muslim-majority areas
of Jammu and Ladakh. The Working Group on Centre-State relations, appointed by
Manmohan Singh in 2006, was headed by Justice Sagheer Ahmad, who submitted his
report without discussing it with group members and wound up the group without
further ado. To this day, members do not have a copy of the Report, which is
simply unheard of, and a sad reflection on the manner in which the UPA has
conducted itself on the sensitive issue of Jammu and Kashmir .
Mr.
Habibullah also expressed himself on the issue of shared sovereignty: “While
finding out a political settlement (read communal settlement) of Kashmir , two things need to be kept in mind. When Shimla
agreement took place (in 1972), it was decided that what is with Pakistan would remain with it and what is with India
will remain with it and the Line of Control (LoC) will also remain same…
Kashmiri people need Azadi – feeling of freedom. I have been reiterating this
again and again. Kashmiri people should move forward by feeling the freedom of
democracy”. Since Pakistan
never abided by the Shimla Accord, just as it disregarded the UN resolution on
vacating occupied Kashmir, how can any agreement be unilaterally binding on India
alone? Naturally Mr. Habibullah does not say.
Three
things were crystal clear from his exposition on shared sovereignty. One, Jammu and Ladakh have no
place whatsoever in his scheme of things. Two, the aspirations of the people of
Kashmir (read Muslims) have to be respected; they need be given the kind of
independence they want from India .
Three, he remembers only the 1972 Shimla agreement, and not the February 1994
Parliamentary unanimous resolution which rendered the Shimla agreement
redundant. The 1994 resolution has mandated the Government of India to
integrate into the Indian Union Pakistan-occupied-Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan,
using all possible means. That no regime has been sincere in this quest is
another matter.
Yet
can one legitimately blame Mr. Habibullah for being so irrational and communal?
No; because India
permits anybody to say anything and go scot-free. We are not a Republic in the
true sense of the term. We are a Banana Republic where the powers-that-be in
New Delhi are least bothered to censure those who have been working overtime to
disintegrate India or ensure yet another communal partition of the country.
The
worst part of the whole situation has been the total and abysmal failure of the
main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party. Had it played the part of a
responsible and effective opposition, New
Delhi would not have dared to do what it has done to
promote the likes of Wajahat Habibullah who continue the unfinished task of
Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his ilk. But when the BJP, including its parent RSS, is
unable to checkmate the towering ambitions of its Jinnah-loving leaders, this
too, is no surprise.
The author is former Chair Professor, Maharaja Gulab Singh
Chair, University of Jammu, Jammu, & former member Indian Council of
Historical Research
No comments:
Post a Comment