‘My stand on PDP-BJP alliance vindicated’

Q No 1:- Karra Sb, You were opposed to PDP’s alliance with BJP and now your stand is vindicated by the BJP’s tough posturing on Kashmir. Do you favour the idea to end the Party’s alliance with BJP? If so do you think, will ending alliance with BJP help PDP to regain lost ground in Kashmir?

REPLY: Again, it is a matter to be understood first as to why I have been opposing PDP’s alliance with BJP. The ethos of Kashmiriyat has never accepted fundamentalism. It has time and again rejected extremism (It had never conceived or thought of being governed by the radical forces). It is because of this, for the last more than 16 months I have been vehemently opposing the alliance of PDP with ideologically RSS driven BJP. It is only by conviction and that too in the historical perspective that on one side I opposed any tie up with the RSS- BJP combine and on the other side I have been warning the dangerous consequences for giving an easy passage to RSS ideology in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, moreso, in the muslim dominated areas of the state i.e Kashmir Valley, Chenab Valley and Pir Panchal. I have been vehemently requesting the Party leadership for the course correction by disassociating itself from RSS-BJP combine. As I had foreseen that having got this lifetime opportunity RSS would not leave any stone unturned for cultural, ideological, administrative and even religious ingression in this muslim dominated state. When Late Mufti Sb was alive I went to the extent of saying that what RSS could not achieve in our State for last 60 years, PDP had facilitated them to achieve that in last 6 months. On the demise of Mufti Sb, I had even requested Mehbooba Ji that she has got a God given opportunity to undo the deep damage to PDP in particular and the people in general by not forming the Government with the right wing Party. On the contrary, I suggested her to explore the formation of a Secular combine alongwith Congress and National Conference or simply write to the Governor that I would like to sit in opposition. Had she chosen any of the aforementioned options, PDP would have got ample opportunity for salvaging its lost ground and situation would not have come to, where it is today. People in general and voters in particular especially the youth, felt betrayed by this alliance and the Psyche of the masses was hurt. But, timely course correction would not have damaged the party to the extent where it is today and the situation would not have reached to this irreparable limit. What all has happened during last 45 days, I can only say “I wish my stand should not have been vindicated”. Last 45 days must have shamed the Natzi’s as well, which has rendered all stake holders irrelevant in today’s situation. God alone knows what all is going to happen in the coming days.

Q No 2:- How do you react to the Prime Minister’s support to demand for “Azadi” to Baluchistan and claim over Pak Administered Kashmir (PAK), Gilgit and Baltistan?  

REPLY: In the first instance, Prime Minister’s speech from the rostrum of Red Fort is supposed to be a policy speech thereby enduring his Government’s intent in moving forward for dealing in certain serious sensitive and contentious issues which are paramount for the country’s development and repute. Mr Modi did not leave any opportunity for his party, or his ideologues, or even the masses in general, to praise him for his personal achievements, if at all there were any. It was full of statistics, and blame game rather than Politics. He was at his best for self praising and self projection rather than a visionary. In the later part of 90’s, when the Indian intervention in Baluchistan had caught the attention of the International community which came in way of India’s efforts to earn a slot in certain privileged International forums, the then Prime Minister of India Mr Inder Kumar Gujral lost no time in withdrawing India’s clandestine hand from Baluchistan. Thereafter India did not fiddle in its affairs any more. But Prime Minister Modi’s jingoistic mention about Baluchistan in his speech on 15th August has confirmed India’s involvement in the strife struck state in Pakistan. It has further declared its intent in public to fiddle over there, maybe in retaliation to Pakistan’s involvement in Kashmir matters. What I have come to know that Mr Modi’s speech on Baluchistan was driven more by Politically jingoistic and naïve Politicians rather than certain seasoned, balanced and experienced serving as well as retired bureaucrats, who have served at different levels internationally. Neither these naïve and inexperienced pseudo politicians nor Mr Modi realized that by equating Baluchistan with Kashmir would be endorsing Pakistan’s stated position on Kashmir of being an unfinished agenda. What this jingoistic team did not realize then, they would soon realize that they have not done any good to Baluch struggle rather than bad, in fact very bad. This very statement of India can absolve Pakistan in the International Community from the excesses committed or intending to commit on Baluchis. Till 14th of August it was Pakistan which was ridiculed Internationally for its involvement in Kashmir but on 15th of August. Modi has handed over a handle to Pakistan on a platter for using it against India in the International community. This in my opinion would change the Political dynamics in the South East Asia in the days to come.

Q No 3:- How would you like to react to the meeting of the Prime Minister with a delegation of opposition leaders from Jammu and Kashmir led by Omar Abdullah. What are your comments on Prime Minister’s statement on Kashmir after the meeting? Also tell us something about the handling of the opposition role by National Conference Working President Omar Abdullah?  

REPLY: Though, the efforts by the United Opposition in J&K are based on sincerity to provide first hand information on anarchical situation in the hands of both Government of India and the State Government. I have very little hopes that anything positive would come out, which would act as a healing touch for the Kashmiris. The very official statement issued by PMO can be termed as equivalent to rubbing salt on their wounds. Not surprisingly after brutally killing around 70 people, maiming thousands and blinding hundreds, Mr Modi has woken up to realize  that development alone is no solution to the current unrest. The actions of last 45 days by both Central Government and the State Government testify about their intentions. For the past fifty days, it has been Oppression, Repression and Suppression. Prime Minister Modi’s intentions can be gauged by the very fact that he has desired to talk on the conditionally. He knows by doing so, he could beat the drum about it World over and in the Country as well. Instead, firstly sense of security, civil liberties, human rights and self respect is needed to be restored, which can only be done by repealing draconian laws, booking the guilty for brutalizing, killing, maiming, blinding and disrespecting the people. In a single liner, I would sum up the Prime Minister’s statement as “TOO LITTLE TOO LATE”.

Q No 4:- What you have to say about Rajnath Singh’s second visit to Srinagar?  

Reply: In this matter, I had already cleared my stand about such visits. I had said that it is in exercise in futility and the same opinion holds good for his second visit. The problem is that Government of India is lacking clarity as to what actually was its Political strategy to deal with Kashmir. Before throwing rhetorical and wild invitations for talks one should understand first that who will talk to whom and what is a common meeting ground as would India always mention regarding talks with Pakistan, “that aggression and talks cannot go side by side” should hold good for talks with the stakeholders with regard to Kashmir problem, as well. I maintain that setting pre conditions is willfully inviting rejection. Moreover, meeting same set of people who have no role on the ground to normalize situation is to make mockery of a visit. One fails to understand what role can JD(U) or Panthers Party or any insignificant individual/organization, who can least influence the ground situation could do to turnaround the present unrest. Let BJP leadership show guts to follow footprints of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, when he initiated one on one dialogue with the majority of Hurriyat leadership and L K Advani also talked one on one with top brass militant commanders. It is in such situations only when I get forced to say, the Government of India has always applied different yard sticks in any or every respect. May it be Political, Developmental, Infrastructural or Financial. When Government of India could talk to the militant commander’s or the Separatist leaders of Mizoram, Nagaland, Assam, Jharkhand, Naxals and Maoists unconditionally. Why its nationalism does get converted to hyper nationalism when it comes to Kashmir.

Q No 5: Joint separatist leadership has asked legislators to quit. Will you as an elected representative in Parliament- the highest law making body of the country set the trend of quitting in protest against the recent killings and disproportionate use of force in Kashmir?  

REPLY: I am very closely watching the situation and even protesting and agitating on it within available means. As and when I would feel that all other available means have failed in restorating peace and tranquility in the state and normalizing the situation, I would not hesitate to do so. But it would be my personal decision, not driven by any convenience or compulsion.

Q No 6:- The government has put in command a new Divisional Commissioner in Kashmir and transferred most of district SPs in valley? Do you think the better administrative talents have been put in command to deal with the law and order situation? The recent transfers of the bureaucrats at the top have generated a feeling that the present government has neutralized local bureaucracy,  What are your views on this issue?  

REPLY: Basically administration is supposed to be subservient to the Political command which thereof represents the Government’s intent in dealing with certain serious and sensitive issues. There is an old English saying, “Fish starts rotting at the head”, that is what has happened in the present dispensation. It is true that there could be discontentment and a sense of insecurity and disrespect amongst the local cadres of Civil and Police administration of being not preferred for running the administration. This feeling might not have been there earlier, but after PDP publically announced its policy of preferential treatment/ postings over the non locals during the elections and now finding it totally opposite to the declared policy, has resulted in such feelings.

Q No 7:- You are vocal outside the Parliament but not raising any Kashmir centric issue inside the Parliament. Any specific reasons for that?  

REPLY: After PDP’s alliance with the BJP and subsequent formation of Government, the BJP’s denial in response to my questions raised in the Parliament for returning the Power Projects and repealing of AFSPA already enshrined in the Agenda of Alliance, PDP chose to remain silent on BJP’s response. Though the Opposition Leader Mr Omar Abdullah questioned the Government while the Assembly in the state was sitting about the contradiction between Agenda of Alliance and the BJP’s stated position in t

he Parliament in reply to its own MP’s questions. PDP again chose to remain silent on that. I had even been vociferously raising the issue of ill treatment meted out to the students studying in different states in terms of harassment and even backing out of commitment for the scholarships promised to them under the Prime Ministers programme. It was a matter of great surprise when the BJP backed out of the assurances made on the floor of House after my speech on budget where the Union Finance Minister had appreciated as well as assured to fulfill my demands of two Smart Cities, two AIIMS, two IIMS, one each for Jammu and Srinagar and one IIT for Srinagar as Jammu already has one and the same issues lateron snowballed into a big controversy, still PDP chose to remain silent on it. So this in itself shows that I have always been raking up all sensitive and contentious issues confronted by the State in general and Kashmir in particular. As far as not raising up the issue of present unrest in Parliament is concerned, it all happened on technical grounds. For that one needs to understand the Parliamentary practices for raising issues/ questions or participation in debates. It is totally different from what we see in our own State Assembly. For instance 60 minutes Zero hour is a dedicated hour for raising issues of emergent nature for an assembly strength of 87 members. Here in assembly we do not need to give a prior notice for raising these emergent issues. With the start of Zero hour, a member is supposed to raise his/her hand for seeking the Speaker’s approval to speak on the issue. Even if half the strength of the assembly raises their hand for seeking such approval, the Speaker can still manage to accommodate all of them by allotting a minute or so to such members out of sixty allotted minutes to conduct the business of raising issues of emergent nature. While as in Lok Sabha, where the strength of members is 545 and the number of minutes allotted for Zero hour is the same that is sixty minutes. Moreover, you are supposed to give a prior notice with the nature of issue to be raised and it is only by draw of lots, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha decides who can speak or who cannot, in the zero hour in those allotted sixty minutes. Furthermore, it is the prerogative of the Speaker after going through the cited subject on which a member is seeking approval to speak, whether to put that particular subject for draw of lots or not. As far as participating in the debate is concerned one needs to understand that the total number of time allotted for that particular debate is divided by number of members of Lok Sabha, that way time allocated for each Member of Parliament is around one minute. So each party gets time to participate in the debate according to the strength of the party in Lok Sabha. That way BJP gets 282 minutes, Congress gets 45 minutes, TMC gets 39 minutes, AIADMK gets 34 minutes and PDP gets 2 minutes. But it is upto the Leader of the party or Deputy Leader of the party, in absence of the Leader, to decide who can participate in the debate and who cannot and in advance these names have to be communicated in writing to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha a day before the commencement of the debate. In the case of PDP in absence of Ms Mehbooba Mufti as the Leader of the party in Parliament (Who has already resigned), Mr Muzaffar Hussain Beig had to do it, who became the Leader of the party by default, Which he did and chose to speak himself. It is a different matter that PDP by way of its strength could have spoken only for two minutes. Mr Beig was allowed by the Speaker and facilitated by BJP to speak for 40 minutes. These very technical grounds were the reasons where I could not participate in the debate.
Kns/Kashmir Today