Dalip Padgoankar fails to defend interlocutors' report

Veteran journalist and head of interlocutors team on J&K Dalip Padgoankar tried hard to defend their report, in a first ever free public interaction on it, here on Saturday. He failed miserably when he chose to keep mum on a commoner’s question, ‘what recommendations in the report are in the interest of the nation?’

While defending the report, though Padgaonkar claimed that he has not ignored the issue of Kashmiri Pandits or refugees. He accepted Islamic radicalization of youth in Kashmir is a fact but has not found any place in the report. For the first time after the release of interlocutors report to public on May 24 the head of interlocutors team on J&K Dalip Padgoankar had offered himself to a free public interaction at a seminar organised by India Foundation at India International Centre.

The seminar was well attended by intellectuals from across the country and many retired military officers. The Opposition Leader in Rajya Sabha and senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley was the principal speaker in the seminar and four member panel of speakers consisted of Dilip Padgoankar, BJP National Executive Member and chief spokesman of J&K Dr Jitendra Singh and former Union Minister Arif Mohammed Khan. The interaction was moderated by BJP national spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman.
Addressing the seminar Mr Jaitley said that the entire problem of Kashmir is because of faulty Nehruvian vision that has proved costly for nation. He said that Kashmir is an unfinished agenda for Pakistan and Government of India has run out of ideas which is evident from the fact that the UPA Government under Dr Manmohan Singh has been appointing Working Groups and interlocutors without any fair policy.

Mr Jaitley was very critical of Justice Sageer Ahmed report which according to him was prepared when Sageer Ahmed was ailing and finally died after which the report was submitted to State Government without placing it before the leaders who were the members of the Working Group including him (Jaitley).

The BJP leader said that the cross border terrorism is an important factor supporting militancy in J&K and it suits the separatist leaders like Syed Ali Shah Geelani for whom their politics survives only if Kashmir remains tense. He said the concessions can be made to the common people and not to the separatists of Kashmir. He also pointed out that the Kashmir issue might have not existed had veteran freedom fighter and then Home Minister Sardar Patel not been kept out from the scene. He said it was unfortunate that the veteran leader was not given the charge to deal with J and K.

The most dangerous thing in the report is that they (interlocutors) have diluted India’s stand on PoK by changing the nomenclature to Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Jaitley said. It is legitimising Pakistan's claim on the occupied territory, he said. He also pointed out a number of similarities between the recommendations made by the interlocutors and those suggested by former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf talked about things like joint administration and control and soft borders. This report also touches on opening up the LoC for trade and tourism, he said. The interlocutors' report would take the state back to its 1953 position and this was unacceptable, Jaitley reiterated.

Dr Jitendra Singh forthrightly questioned the psyche and intentions of the interlocutors. He said, “we don’t look at J&K as a dispute or an issue because our position is that J&K is very much a part of Indian Union like any other state. We also reiterate that those who look at J&K as a dispute or an issue are ones who have a vested interest in keeping the Kashmir pot boiling and projecting J&K as disputed for their personnel interests. There is no dispute over J&K either historically or Constitutionally particularly after the 1994 Parliament resolution stating that only un addressed aspect of J&K is how to retrieve the PoK.

Dr Jitendra Singh said the accession of J&K with Indian Union was never conditional and in fact ratified by J&K Assembly in 1954, which consisted of 75 MLAs from NC. The Constitution of J&K applicable from 1957 states in Section 3 that J&K is an integral part of India and there can be no amendment to that. He said Kashmiriyat stands for composite culture and it can’t be restored without the return of Kashmiri Pandits to Valley.

Arif Mohammed Khan said that from his experience as a Minister during the Indira Gandhi’s regime he understands that Kashmir has to be seen from wider perspective. From last 30 years Pakistan and ISI has been working to destablise the region in the name of religion, he added. Expressing his concern on this he said that the issue of J&K requires a deeper analysis and approach.
Defending the report submitted by the Interlocutors Dilip Padgoankar claimed that false allegations are made that the report is partisan. He referred to several pages of report to claim that all the regions have been equal mention in the report. The suggestions to review the provisions of post 1953 Indian Constitution was not made with the intension of encouraging separatist sentiment, he added. He said as of today whatever is the locus standi the report has tried to give the best possible suggestions on each aspect.

He said certain suggestions have been made about AFSPA but not clearly recommended its revocation. In the question answer session that followed several retired army officers were aggrieved at the manner in which the issue of Army and AFSPA in J&K is being handled.

UPA compromising Indian nationality

When a resolute MP chaperones Rohingya Muslims from far eastern Myanmar to Hyderabad in the south without a hitch en route, it is obvious the Centre has consented to compromise nationality. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should explain if the entrenched complicity with the demographic invasion from Bangladesh is the template for his quest for open borders with our western neighbour, and if New Delhi is determined to disregard the communal and civilisational challenges posed by the Assam crisis.

Bodos and other native tribes are tormented by the unending deluge of illegal immigrants who have grabbed all government and vacant land and are now squeezing the native populace. The arrest of Kokrajhar MLA Pradip Brahma (Bodoland People’s Front) in the wake of the recentviolence there has enraged locals as no one has been apprehended for the 20 July murder of four Bodo youths who were publicly snatched away from the police.

Bodoland Territorial Council leader Hagrama Mohilary alleges that the only radical groups operating regionally are HUJI, Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam, and United Muslim National Army. He says the growing Bangladeshi population threatens Bodo culture, way of life, and peace in the entire region, and the only solution is to completely expel the illegal immigrants; seal the border with Bangladesh; and curb Dhubri MP Badruddin Ajmal’s help to the infiltrators.

Dhubri district bordering Kokrajhar is full of Bengali-speaking Muslims, alleged to be illegal immigrants. All flaunt apparently valid legal documents: electoral rolls with their father's name on it; birth certificates; ration cards; and judicial stamp papers signed legibly by magistrates. Some have land tax records and Indira Awas Yojana houses.

The Assam riots were followed by grim violence over the Assam situation at Azad Maidan, Mumbai. In this backdrop, a delegation of the National Commission for Minorities visited the Bodoland Territorial Autonomous Districts and Dhubri district on 11-12 August. The Asian Centre for Human Rights has denounced its report as ‘inflammatory’ and demanded a probe by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes as Bodos are STs.

ACHR director Suhas Chakma questions NCM’s wisdom in sending Planning Commission Member Syeda Hameed and Adviser G.B. Panda (with NCM Member Keki Daruwala) for the probe when NCM Member H.T. Sangliana hails from Mizoram and knows the regional demography. Ms. Hameed, interestingly, participated in a seminar hosted by the UN Information Centre at Delhi in September 2010, where rabid secessionists from Srinagar raised anti-India, pro-azadi slogans without hindrance from the organizers or panelists.

The NCM report claims the displaced in camps include 300,000 Muslims and 100,000 Bodos; the cause of conflict is a half-century of immigration. The Bodoland Accord of 2003 was to give Bodos autonomy and constitutional protection under the Sixth Schedule to people of the four contiguous districts carved out as BTAD. The delegation visited one Bodo camp and noted that they feared to return home as they were surrounded by Muslim villages which had weapons like talwar and dao. It visited six Muslim camps and expressed dissatisfaction with facilities there, and recorded allegations that policemen in some camps were terrorizing Muslims.

The NCM report says that besides Muslims, Bodos have a history of conflict with non-Bodo tribes. It notes ‘public opinion’ that Bodos (30%) want to drive out other ethnic groups to increase their population to 50% or more, so they can demand statehood for Bodoland. It says Government must firmly tackle BTAD chief executive Hagrama Mohilary in this regard.

The NCM report adds that though infiltration is continuing, the current conflict was not between Bangladeshi immigrants and Bodos, but between Bodos and resident Muslims of the BTAD. It claims (with no evidence) that Bodos have arms like AK-47s leftover from their militancy over a decade ago, while Muslims are poorly armed in comparison; hence militant Jihadi outfits may start supplying lethal weapons in this area.

Incensed at this report, Suhas Chakma counters that the Commission’s mandate is to protect religious minorities. Bodos are Christians (15%) and native Bathou (50%) and both are minorities under the NCM Act. But the delegation reduced the Assam riots to Bodos versus Muslims and treated only the latter as minorities, blatantly violating the Act. NCM’s “inflammatory statements” aggravated the vulnerability of northeastern people, and though the exodus of nearly 50,000 northeast people (majority Christians) from some southern states in the third week of August falls within its mandate, it was ignored.

Worse, though the Bodoland Territorial Council was created under the Sixth Schedule which prohibits transfer to tribal lands to non-tribals, Bodo land rights remain unprotected. The Bodoland Accord failed to bring the National Democratic Front of Bodoland on board. The Bodo Liberation Tigers signed the Accord, became the Bodoland People’s Progressive Front (BPPF), and has been in the Congress-led coalition for the past six years, but has had no positive impact. Bangladesh handed over NDFB leader Ranjan Daimary to India in May 2010, but the Centre failed to dialogue with him and seems reluctant to bring the peace process with all Bodo groups to a logical conclusion.

The Gogoi regime failed to act when two Muslims were killed by unknown persons in Kokrajhar on 6 July, and on 19 July two leaders of the All-Bodoland Minority Student’s Union and All-Assam Minority Student’s Union were shot at near Kokrajhar. On 20 July, four ex-members of the Bodo Liberation Tigers were killed in retaliation; this triggered violence across Kokrajhar, Chirang and Baksa districts under the Bodoland Territorial Council areas and in Dhubri district outside the BTC. As the state government dithered, nearly 80 lives were lost and four lakh displaced (community-wise figures have been suppressed by the government to contain emotions).

With no convenient scapegoats available, the media and civil society groups are clueless about whom to blame for the crisis. The Prime Minister offered a relief package of Rs 300 crore during his visit, but gave no details of how it was to be spent. Then Congress president Sonia Gandhi landed and advised people to remain in the camps, triggering fresh tension and violence as suspicions rose that the torched homesteads would be grabbed. The conveniently timed exodus of northeast persons distracted national attention from Assam. As those who quit their jobs out of alleged fear take trains back south (free both ways on humanitarian grounds), the crisis of Bodo land and identity remains unresolved, as does the issue of national security.