our so-called Prime Minister was not really committed to what he said in Parliament to end the controversy over his Sharm-el-Sheikh fiasco became clear just two months later when Home Minister P Chidambaram took the dangerous plunge on October 14 at Srinagar and made statements no Indian minister had ever made. It was obvious that he spoke on behalf of the Prime Minister. After all, what he said to outrage the Indian nation was a policy matter.
Speaking on the second day of the two-day All-India Editors’ Conference, the fake historian and perverted conflict-manager in P Chidambaram alarmed and shocked everyone when he very cheerfully, but shamefully, said: “Voice of separation in Kashmir is a reality… There is a political problem in Kashmir and it has to be solved… Centre would start a dialogue – but it will be a quiet dialogue and quiet diplomacy, away from the media glare, till a political solution to the problem is arrived at. The dialogue will be held quietly – one-on-one, two people to two people… Once the broader contours (of a solution to the Kashmir issue) are arrived at, it will be made public… The solution (to Kashmir problem) must recognize the unique history and geography of Jammu and Kashmir . Solutions to other problems in India cannot be replicated here. We may find a unique solution, there is nothing wrong… but it must be acceptable to the vast majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir ”.
What the Home Minister said at Srinagar on behalf of New Delhi clearly suggested that the custodians of the Indian State were in complete accord with Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists who consistently say that the problem confronting Kashmir is “political and not religious.” They very conveniently and willfully ignored the persecution of the miniscule minority of Kashmiri Hindus who quit the Valley in 1990 and became refugees in their own motherland. Perhaps the custodians of the Indian State shared the perverted and communal view of the Kashmiri separatists and communalists that Kashmiri Hindus were no more than fifth columnists.
The Home Minister’s highly outrageous statement also suggested that the custodians of the Indian State do not consider the Indian nation an important factor in the country’s political situation, and that they would force down the nation’s throat their pernicious and communal solution to the Kashmir issue that is “acceptable to the vast majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir”.
It was highly undesirable on his part to say the solution which would be arrived at through quiet talks and quiet diplomacy must be acceptable to the “vast majority of the people of the state” (read Kashmiri Muslims). That the Home Minister chose to ignore the national sentiment, which is against any concession to terrorism and communalism, and did not talk of the will of the nation, was nothing but a deliberate affront, coupled with taunts, to Indians. How else should one interpret his statement on quiet talks, quiet diplomacy, unique history and geography of J&K, and political solution to the Kashmir problem?
It was no wonder then that all Kashmir-based leaders without exception; all Kashmir-based media persons without exception; and all their supporters in New Delhi and elsewhere in the country without exception, hailed the Home Minister and Prime Minister. Why not? After all, the Home Minister had spoken the language of Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists and vindicated their anti-India and communal stands.
Three: Ironically, the attitude of the BJP to what the Home Minister said in Kashmir on October 14 was amazing. Instead of taking on the Union Government and accusing it of pursuing a pro-separatist agenda, the leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha and the party veteran, Arun Jaitley, joined hands with the Home Minister. He didn’t even once question the Home Minister’s line. He only sought a clarification from him and his query was: “Have you taken Chief Minister Omar Abdullah into confidence? Pat came the reply. “Yes, we (Union Government and Omar Abdullah) are on the same page”.
The role played by the main opposition party in the last session of the Rajya Sabha revealed two things. One was that the Congress and National Conference were “on the same page” and that they were working in unison. The other was that the BJP was also on the same page and that the Congress, National Conference and BJP were working in tandem.
It must be pointed out that what Arun Jaitley did in the Rajya Sabha was not at all surprising. That BJP had decided to dilute the Indian stand on Jammu & Kashmir and that it was more than eager to conciliate Pakistan had become clear as early as in March 1999 at Colombo . If one really wishes to know what the BJP-led NDA Government had agreed upon in Colombo during the meeting between the then Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Sartaj Aziz, one should go through Sartaj Aziz’s recent book, Between Dreams and Realities: Some Milestones in Pakistan’s History.
It would be no exaggeration to say that it was the BJP that took the initiative to unsettle the settled in Jammu & Kashmir, further pander to communalism in Kashmir and appease Pakistan , and that Congress is religiously treading the path BJP charted in 1999.
Four: In other words, both national parties tried to the hilt to spoil the Indian pitch in Jammu & Kashmir. So much so, neither these two ruling and opposition mainstream national parties nor the UPA Government took any cognizance of what the crude and rude Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said on January 7, 2010 while addressing a joint-session of the Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir Assembly at Muzaffarabad.
Instead, the custodians of the Indian State let Zardari go scot-free, thus causing an insult to the Indian nation, which has all along held the view that the conflict between the two countries is ideological and should be dealt with as such. To be more precise, the Indian nation has all through believed that while Pakistan is an ideological state, India is a secular, tolerant and all-inclusive state and that New Delhi should firmly deal with Pakistan so that it is not in a position to poke its dirty nose in the internal affairs of the country and provoke communal protests in Kashmir.
Zardari had, it may be recalled, said: “Kashmir is our juggler vein”, “Pakistan is ready to wage a 1,000-year war with India over Kashmir dispute”, and “this is a war of ideologies (between the two countries) and would last for generations”.
Was what Zardari said not a grave provocation? Indeed, it was a grave provocation. But our spineless and coward custodians kept their mouths shut on the premise that any national stand on Jammu & Kashmir and Pakistan would alienate the minority voters. Hence, their shameful insistence on dialogue with the rogue and failed Pakistani State .
