Discourse on Kashmir has always been associated with some frightening consequences for those who get involved in it. Pandit Nehru died soon after he dispatched Sheikh Abdullah to Pakistan for negotiations with field Marshall Ayub Khan in 1964. Lal Bahudur Shashtri died while negiotiating on Kashmir in 1966 in Tashkand. Tashkand declaration did not prove nice for Field Mashal Ayub Khan as well. Z. A. Bhutto used it as a tool to defame Ayub Khan and catalyze his exit from power. Bhutto was accused as sell out on Kashmir by his adversaries Pakistan National Alliance used Shimla agreement to defame Bhutto. In recent past dethronement and detention of Nawaz Sharief was triggered by the Lahore declaration. Which he signed with then Prime Minister Vajpayee. Will Delhi declaration be followed by a similar eventuality in content of General Mushraff or Manmohan Singh. Santh Fath-e-Singh was a reputed leader of Sikhs. He once decided to go a hunger strike and demanded from the center that Chandigarh be handed over to Punjab.
Santh Fath-e-singh also threatened to put himself of fire incase this demand is not responded properly when he was on the verse of immolating himself a central minister Gurmukh Singh musafir met him and assured that chandigarh will be given to Punjab Santh Fath-e-Singh broke his fast appritinted the prime gesture of the central Govt. after sometime when Sant Fth-e-Singh reminded the center about the promises made by Mr. Gurmukh Singh Musafir response of the Indian Govt. was that these assurances where given by Mr. Gurmukh Singh Musafir in his personal capacity and not on the behalf of the central Govt. General Mushraff seems to be inflicted by the assurances of Manmoham Singh. Mr. Manmohan Singh happens to be a pros Prime Minister may be General Mushraff fares a similar response from the Indian state when he reminds them of the promises made to aim by prime minister Manmohan Singh.
Ultra nationalist Amanullah Khan and ultra radical Syed Ali Shah Geelani have always been poles apart in their approach towards Kashmir. Recently both of them seemed to have similar stand on Srinagar Muzaffarabad bus service. For both it was an attempt towards putting Kashmir issue on back burner / cold storage. When Amanullah Khan was asked that why did he oppose bus. Although most of the Kashmiri leaders support it , his response was that those support are employees of the two Govts. Where as leaders like Geelani continue to oppose it. If this statement is taken as an indicator of the things that manifold one can see a silver lining of prospects of unification between two main streams of secessionist movement for the first time pro-pak hard-line leadership is feeling betrayed the pro-independence leadership perceives it to be a symbol of independent thinking among those who oppose CBMS. Unanimous opposition to CBMS from pro-freedom and ultra radical leadership is bringing them closer. If the trend permits sense of non-achievement may have a positive impact of unifying different streams of genuine Kashmiri leadership
Leaders are the ones who represents aspirations of masses risk themselves for achievement of certain ideals Kashmiri leaders were seen more concerned about their own involvement in the process of negotiations rather than out come of the negotiations. Involvement of leaders does not necessarily means that decisions will be up to expectations of the masses Sheikh Abdullah was involved in facilitations accession of the state to India Sheikh was also involved in 1875 agreement. The involvement however proved to be disastrous for Kashmiri as it conferred a degree of legitimacy to these notorious agreements. The attitude of the leaders should have been to provide a bottom line beyond which anything will not be accepted to any segment of the divided or united leadership rather than seeking involvement in the peace process.
Disintegration of Ottoman Empire led to emergence of Muslims. The rulers of these states were the ones who had been appointed by the British and French Colonialists. In some countries military generals with the active or passive support of Soviet Union took over control of reigns of power. Most of these leaders remain alienated from masses. They serve interest of those powers who have helped them to become rulers. Muslim rulers seldom remained sincere towards Muslim problems. Afghanistan provided a rare opportunity for unification of Muslims beyond the Muslim nation states. Muslim youth from whole of the world participated in Afghan war got united irrespective of the stand of their Govt. towards this issue. After the end of the Afghan war they extended their support to insurgencies in Bosnia, Chechnya, Philippines and Kashmir. When Indians alleged that insurgents in Kashmir manage to go on with Pakistani support Pakistan tries to convince India that there are networks beyond Pakistan which support this insurgence. India has managed to contain Pakistan support to Kashmir insurgency now whether insurgency manages to sustain itself on international support remains to be seen.
It is not for the first time that India has agreed to discuss and deliberate on final settlement of Kashmir issue. They did the same in Shimla, prior to Shimla and after Shimla in Lahore. Concern of Kashmiri’s has not been acknowledgement of the problem on the part of the parties but lack of efforts towards resolution of the problem. The delay has increased miseries and sufferings of Kashmiri’s with every passing day. Re-statement of intention to resolve the dispute has not impressed Kashmiri’s previously General Mushraff used to be categorical on time frame for resolution of Kashmir dispute. In New Delhi he has divorced this idea. Have Kashmiri’s to wait for 50 more years for settlement of Kashmir problem or will the global scenario and hegemoniestic powers over take both India and Pakistan and force them to go for some settlement. When General Mushraff proceeded for retreat in Afghanistan he used Kashmir and safety of strategic assets of Pakistan as justification of this retreat after Delhi he seems to be on the path of retreat in Kashmir as well. Will retreat in Kashmir be followed by rolling back of nuclear programme and depiction of general Mushraff as General retreat in the world history.
Santh Fath-e-singh also threatened to put himself of fire incase this demand is not responded properly when he was on the verse of immolating himself a central minister Gurmukh Singh musafir met him and assured that chandigarh will be given to Punjab Santh Fath-e-Singh broke his fast appritinted the prime gesture of the central Govt. after sometime when Sant Fth-e-Singh reminded the center about the promises made by Mr. Gurmukh Singh Musafir response of the Indian Govt. was that these assurances where given by Mr. Gurmukh Singh Musafir in his personal capacity and not on the behalf of the central Govt. General Mushraff seems to be inflicted by the assurances of Manmoham Singh. Mr. Manmohan Singh happens to be a pros Prime Minister may be General Mushraff fares a similar response from the Indian state when he reminds them of the promises made to aim by prime minister Manmohan Singh.
Ultra nationalist Amanullah Khan and ultra radical Syed Ali Shah Geelani have always been poles apart in their approach towards Kashmir. Recently both of them seemed to have similar stand on Srinagar Muzaffarabad bus service. For both it was an attempt towards putting Kashmir issue on back burner / cold storage. When Amanullah Khan was asked that why did he oppose bus. Although most of the Kashmiri leaders support it , his response was that those support are employees of the two Govts. Where as leaders like Geelani continue to oppose it. If this statement is taken as an indicator of the things that manifold one can see a silver lining of prospects of unification between two main streams of secessionist movement for the first time pro-pak hard-line leadership is feeling betrayed the pro-independence leadership perceives it to be a symbol of independent thinking among those who oppose CBMS. Unanimous opposition to CBMS from pro-freedom and ultra radical leadership is bringing them closer. If the trend permits sense of non-achievement may have a positive impact of unifying different streams of genuine Kashmiri leadership
Leaders are the ones who represents aspirations of masses risk themselves for achievement of certain ideals Kashmiri leaders were seen more concerned about their own involvement in the process of negotiations rather than out come of the negotiations. Involvement of leaders does not necessarily means that decisions will be up to expectations of the masses Sheikh Abdullah was involved in facilitations accession of the state to India Sheikh was also involved in 1875 agreement. The involvement however proved to be disastrous for Kashmiri as it conferred a degree of legitimacy to these notorious agreements. The attitude of the leaders should have been to provide a bottom line beyond which anything will not be accepted to any segment of the divided or united leadership rather than seeking involvement in the peace process.
Disintegration of Ottoman Empire led to emergence of Muslims. The rulers of these states were the ones who had been appointed by the British and French Colonialists. In some countries military generals with the active or passive support of Soviet Union took over control of reigns of power. Most of these leaders remain alienated from masses. They serve interest of those powers who have helped them to become rulers. Muslim rulers seldom remained sincere towards Muslim problems. Afghanistan provided a rare opportunity for unification of Muslims beyond the Muslim nation states. Muslim youth from whole of the world participated in Afghan war got united irrespective of the stand of their Govt. towards this issue. After the end of the Afghan war they extended their support to insurgencies in Bosnia, Chechnya, Philippines and Kashmir. When Indians alleged that insurgents in Kashmir manage to go on with Pakistani support Pakistan tries to convince India that there are networks beyond Pakistan which support this insurgence. India has managed to contain Pakistan support to Kashmir insurgency now whether insurgency manages to sustain itself on international support remains to be seen.
It is not for the first time that India has agreed to discuss and deliberate on final settlement of Kashmir issue. They did the same in Shimla, prior to Shimla and after Shimla in Lahore. Concern of Kashmiri’s has not been acknowledgement of the problem on the part of the parties but lack of efforts towards resolution of the problem. The delay has increased miseries and sufferings of Kashmiri’s with every passing day. Re-statement of intention to resolve the dispute has not impressed Kashmiri’s previously General Mushraff used to be categorical on time frame for resolution of Kashmir dispute. In New Delhi he has divorced this idea. Have Kashmiri’s to wait for 50 more years for settlement of Kashmir problem or will the global scenario and hegemoniestic powers over take both India and Pakistan and force them to go for some settlement. When General Mushraff proceeded for retreat in Afghanistan he used Kashmir and safety of strategic assets of Pakistan as justification of this retreat after Delhi he seems to be on the path of retreat in Kashmir as well. Will retreat in Kashmir be followed by rolling back of nuclear programme and depiction of general Mushraff as General retreat in the world history.
No comments:
Post a Comment