Day 3 Monsoon Session Non-comprehensive
Observations
The 20th July 2016 debate
in the Lok Sabha, India, on the situation in Kashmir (VSD’s observations for
social media) –Discussion under Rule 193
I have watched, on LSTV,
the debate on the situation in Kashmir that took place in the Lok Sabha
yesterday. The Minister is scheduled to reply today. One has not opened a
single newspaper, or read a single article on the debate, and so none of what
one says here today is coloured by press.
All parties were genuinely
unanimous in re-asserting their stand that all of Jammu and Kashmir are an
integral part of India.
Many Muslim members of
parliament were fielded as speakers by all parties.
The intent of the house
seems to be to extend developmental works, funds and amendments to the law to
enable better governance in the area, keeping in mind that we live in a
fast-globalising world in which the peoples of this subcontinent can find
common ground vis-a-vis positive aspects (and struggles) of the histories of
the good peoples of the earth.
There seems to be a
consensus on the need for an all-party delegation and/or committee.
The terms of reference for
such a committee or delegation would be important. Points for the ToR may be
drawn from the points made by members of various parties in the parliamentary
debate.
I hope none of the
pronouncements amount to undue muscle-flexing.
It has been many years
since i have made such diligent notes (except during the annual budget for the
past decade and a half). But it made sense to have done so yesterday, perched
here at the seat of our imaginary earth empire!
I share with you, my
surgical observations:
Some of the specific points
made by each party that must be noted are:
INC and BJP: The principal
opposition party and ruling party fielded talented speakers. While these two
speeches were political, the tone and tenor pointed towards overall consensus
in the house.
Samajwadi Party (SP) :
While Mulayam Singh Yadav said he was reading out from a written speech (which,
i suppose, would be submitted for the records), he did digress once, while
turning the page, to mention the presence of the Chinese factor. It also seems
that the written speech also later had similar concerns about China.
Shiv Sena (SS): This party
pointed out/made a mention of Imran Khan of the PTI, saying his party was going
one way, various other wings of state and parties going their own ways, while
pointing out that there is turmoil or confusion within Pakistan.
The TDP (Telugu Desam
Party) drew attention to the fact that security and surveillance need to
respond to emerging technologies, and also ended the speech by saying that
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution should be revisited.
The BJD spoke for the root
causes of suffering in the valley, and stressed on the need for an appropriate
development agenda.
The TRS (Telangana Rashtra
Samiti) said that more channels of communication should be created, and touched
upon the role of social media and the internet. He also said that he has heard
that there are posters in Pakistan saying that there is marshal rule.
The CPI(M) spoke against
the recent use of disproportionate force in the valley. The party said that
when Pakistan is wrong, we have to show how we are right. The party is for an
all-party meet, and said that even the existing two reports (by the committee
of interlocutors, and another report), must be discussed as a part of the
agenda of such an all party meeting.
The YSRCP spoke of the
neglect of J&K, and said there’s been no genuine dialogue with the people
of Kashmir. That only sudden secretary and joint secretary level statements are
seen, and asked: What is wrong with taking to the separatists. The member also
said that his personal view was: That as far as China’s role is concerned, if a
1962 is repeated, we may suffer a humiliating defeat. Suggested that there
should be a separate central level ministry for J&K, like a department had
been dedicated to the North East.
The NCP made a reference to
India’s permanent representative at the UN. Also suggested that people from
J&K should be integrated into the all India civil services at all levels.
Siromani Akali Dal (SAD)
Said there is a need to investigate corruption in the J&K administration.
Also said it is not a law and order problem there, but that it requires a
political solution. Said an all party committee should be made, and the people
consulted, on what to do.
MJ Akbar, Minister of State
for External Affairs spoke. Also because of his association with Kashmir.
Mentioned, in the course of his speech, that Saugato Roy of TMC is his good
friend. Discussed points of History, nation-formation, one-nation, two-nation,
divisive or unifying. Said it is not a geographical war. It’s ideological,
existential.
Rashtryia Janata Dal (RJD)
The member from Bihar said he is an old friend of MJ Akbar. He said Kashmir is
a part of India. We need unity, not violence. Said we should have learnt
lessons from the Pathankot incident.
AAP made a general appeal
for peace.
RLSP said rise above party
lines and bring Kashmiris into the mainstream.
JKPDP (The J&K chief
minister’s party) went into the History of the Independence era, and mentioned
the Tribals in that context, as also the Chinese presence. Said Sheikh Abdullah
took the post without proper democratic elections. He said he now supports the
Indian PM’s road-map, that should have: Balance; Patience; Positive Approach;
Empathy, sympathy; Dialogue. He said he and his family could even be in danger
for making this speech in parliament. It appeared like he then dedicated a few
sentences to conceptually/poetically directly addressing Pakistan with a spirit
of conciliation and friendship.
AIUDF: This member said he
is originally from Bombay, and representing Assam. Said it was time to give
Pakistan a ‘moohtod jawab’. He said an all-party youth delegation should go to
AJK.
INLD: Asked if Kashmir is a
problem, or whether a few people are deliberately keeping this conflict alive.
Said that rather than a few bureaucrats in Delhi making the Kashmir policy,
soldiers who have fought there should be consulted. Said ten percent of
soldiers were from Haryana (the home state of the member speaking).
JD(U) Made a general brief
speech.
IUML: Criticized the AFSPA
(Armed Forces Special Powers Act). Said terrorism is engineered by Pakistan.
Supports government in its fight against terrorism. Spoke of the development
indicators in the state and said people are dissatisfied and disillusioned.
Said wealth should be distributed judiciously. Said Kashmir is an ‘integrated’
part of India (assume he meant integral?)
C.K. Sangma made his
inaugural speech (didn’t notice which party he represents): Said that there is a
need to invest in better infrastructure along our borders, rather than place
jawans at various locations. Spoke of the need for Educational, Social and
Economic activity along the borders. Called for repeal of AFSPA. Said our
intelligence networks can help to bring the human touch, as well as to identity
specific targets rather than targeting civilians in general. Also said how we
treat those who surrender is important. Said that the 6th Schedule amendment
in an accord in the north east should be made immediately as promised. Called
for an all-party delegation to go to J&K.
Asaudin Owaisi of AIMIM:
Said UPA govt. threw the interlocutors report not into the deep freezer, but into
the dustbin. Asked BJP why it hasn’t started talking to all the groups there,
considering its party member is the deputy CM. Wants AFSPA removed. Asked if
the govt. will set up a commission of enquiry (in connection with the recent
incident?) Said an all-party delegation should be sent to the state. Also made
an appeal to the people of the state to strengthen India, and that his party
would be there to help them.
Adhir Ranjan Choudhary (the
second speaker from the INC, Indian National Congress) spoke as a historian.
Made a mention of the ‘khatarnakh’ (dangerous) ISIS doctrine. Said this ISIS
phenomenon could enter from our bordering countries such as Bangladesh and
Pakistan.
The next speaker for the
day (missed which party), said that Pakistan has a hand in the situation, and
that it looks out for such opportunities. He said the situation should not
deteriorate. He asserted that there is a democratically elected government in J&K.
Said the junta (people) there believe in Indianness. He said some shopkeepers
instigate the people at/with Pakistan’s directions. Said some netas don’t want peace
in J&K.
RSP: Said the central and
state government have failed to handle the unrest of the youth. Said we are
only talking about geographical territory, but we have to look at social
integrity. Pointed out, from a reading of news reports, 5 points of conflict.
(unemployment; hindu colony plans; irresponsible statements by people in
administration; Art. 370; disproportionate use of force. Also said that today
(day of making the speech), Pakistan had submitted petitions to the UN and to
Ban Ki Moon.
AITC: Speaks as an academic
historian. Says govt. should talk to all shades of opinion. Says no simple plebiscite
(plebiscitory) solution is possible here. Said we should talk to our own
citizens. And the people should talk to each other. Approval for solutions
should be people-centric. Should take a leaf from the page of the northern
Ireland peace process (black Friday agreement). Made references to Emperors in
history, who were able to maintain a minimal role for themselves, and
decentralize a number of functions. Pointed out to the potential of the federal
structure in India.
RJD:
Kashmir does not need an economic solution. It is a political and social
solution that is required.
No comments:
Post a Comment