9TH September 2008
PRESS STATEMENT
The Land Deal in Kashmir: A Dangerous Surrender to the Jammu Agitators
We the undersigned academics, and others express grave concern at how the dispute over grant of land to the Amarnath Board in Kashmir is being handled by our political authorities. Over four weeks the agitators in Jammu were allowed by the administration to impose a blockade of Kashmir, which, despite official denials practically continued till the end of August. Those whom Mr LK Advani and others call “nationalists”, committed crime, arson and mayhem in Jammu, while waving the national flag. They have themselves proved to the most effective separatists since they entirely separated Kashmir from the rest of the country, and tried to starve out the people of the very area they are never tired of pronouncing an integral part of India. By allowing them to do so and by making concession after concession to them the Government of India cannot escape the stigma of colluding with them. When on the other hand, driven to desperation, the people of Kashmir valley protested against the blockade, as many as forty persons were shot dead by the military, para-military and police forces. In the talks with the Jammu agitators through an all-party delegation headed by the Home Minister, the agitators secured the exclusion of the representatives of the Kashmir parties (PDP and NC) despite an invitation issued to them. No compensation for those killed and injured by army and police firings in the Kashmir valley has been so far announced, in contrast to what was done swiftly in Jammu. And now the final act of collusion with the Jammu agitators has taken place, by the revocation of the Governor’s own order of 29 June and the re-allotment of the 800 kanals of land “exclusively” to the Amarnath Shrine Board. The agreement was announced at a “joint” press conference of the Governor’s representative and the Jammu agitators on 31 August. The deal’s details made it clear that limitation to “the duration of yatra” is a mere formality, since no power is given to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir over how the Shrine Board deals with the land “from time to time”. It is also clear that the special concessions, under paras 9 and 10 of the agreement, about withdrawal of cases and compensation to agitators are confined to Jammu and not made applicable to the Kashmir Division.
No persons sincerely interested in opposing the movement for Kashmir’s secession can support this deal, which is naturally seen in Kashmir as an unjust and provocative act. If we wish to retain Kashmir as part of our country we should stop treating the Kashmiri people as aliens and let them decide what to do with their land. We therefore call upon all fellow-citizens to join us in demanding a revocation of the deal and the establishment of a proper rule of law in the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Professor R.S. Sharma (Patna)
Professor Suvira Jaiswal (Hyderabad)
Professor Keshavan Veluthat (Mangalore)
Professor R.L. Shukla (Delhi)
Professor Irfan Habib (Aligarh)
Professor H.C. Satyarthi (Muzaffarpur)
Professor Shireen Moo svi (Aligarh)
Professor D.N. Jha (Delhi)
Professor Pradeep Saxena (Aligarh)
Professor Iqtidar Alam Khan (Aligarh)
Dr Ramesh Rawat (Aligarh)
Professor Sayera I. Habib (Aligarh)
Dr Prabhat Shukla (New Delhi)
Dr S. Ali Nadeem Rezavi (Aligarh)
Professor Rajan Gurukkal (Mangalore)
Dr Shamim Akhtar (Aligarh)
Released by
IRFAN HABIB
Professor Emeritus, AMU
|
Showing posts with label Shri Amarnath Yatra Sangharsh Samiti. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shri Amarnath Yatra Sangharsh Samiti. Show all posts
September 09, 2008
September 03, 2008
Jammu and Kashmir: Abject surrender to communal forces
An immoral & illegal accord
by A G Noorani (in: Greater Kashmir, September 3, 2008)
Srinagar, Sep 2: The accord between the Jammu and Kashmir government and the Shri Amarnath Yatra Sangharsh Samiti on 31 August is far worse than the government’s order only three months earlier on 26 May. It grants the SAYSS concessions beyond what the May order did. It is one-sided and marks an abject surrender to violence, blockade and to communal forces. The differences between the order and accord are glaring. Here is a list:
1. The order was made pursuant to a decision on 20 May by the cabinet in which both Jammu and Kashmir were represented. The accord completely ignores Kashmir where the land is to be given. Jammu alone was represented. A week earlier, there was a clampdown in the Valley and top leaders were arrested.
2. Even the controversial order nowhere used the word “exclusive”. The SAYSS felt so emboldened as to demand it and threaten to wreck the deal if it was not conceded. The government yielded in the early hours of 31 August. Para 6A says that the Government “shall set aside for use by Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board exclusively the land in Baltal and Domail”. This order unknown anywhere in the world is cloaked under a lie by calling it “traditionally under use for the annual yatra purpose”. The traditional route for over a century is the Pahalgam route. The Baltal route is a recent demand. It was regarded by the Army and Nitish Sengupta Report as dangerous. It is also unnecessary if the limit of yatris set by the Report (1 lakh) is observed.
3. This violates the citizen’s fundamental right under Art. 19 (1) D to move freely throughout India. The demand of exclusivity was not made even in May 2008 or in decades earlier. It is pure communal aggression using the yatra for political demonstration not religious piety.
4. The duration of use is widened to cover pre and post yatra period. Para 6 C first says that the land will be used “for the duration of the yatra” including the period of preparations and winding up. But the very next para has these sinister words: “The aforesaid land shall be used according to the Board’s requirements from time to time, including for the following”. There follow 9 measures including construction, setting up of the sheds and shops etc. These can be done even beyond the yatra period “from time to time” and “according to the Board’s requirements”; may be all the year around.
5. Para 8 of the order insisted that the land “shall return” to the State. This is dropped in the accord. This accomplishes S.K. Sinha’s objective— permanent use the year round.
6. Also dropped totally is Para 4 on payment for user.
7. Dropped too is Para 6. An undertaking of “foolproof measures against water pollution and Para 7 on payment of fine for damage to the forest. There is a pious provision in accord Para 6 C (ix) among the objectives of land user; namely “undertaking measures relating to … preservation of ecology” etc. Breach entails no fine.
8. The order of 26 May was rescinded on 1 July. The accord will require a fresh order to implement it. By itself the accord has no legal force. Section 2(a) of the J&K Forest (Conservation) Act 1997 says “the Government shall not, except on a resolution of the Council of Ministers based on the advice of the Advisory Committee” constituted under the Act “make any order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose”. The earlier phrase “Council of ministers” merely was revised by an amendment in 2001 and the Forest Advisory Committee’s advice was added and made mandatory. “Council of Ministers” is specific. It is different from “J&K Government” whose powers vest now in the governor alone. The law intentionally provides the resolution as a safeguard. This Council can come into existence only after the next elections. In any case the Forest Advisory Committees advice on 12 July 2007 cannot apply to this new accord which must be vetted afresh by that Committee. It was given before the Supreme Court’s final judgment in the T M Godavarman case on 23 November 2007 which lays down the law and makes important observations on balancing development with protection of environment. Failure to consider it vitiates the decision. Precisely based on misrepresentation of opinion of the deputy CM Muzaffar Hussain Beg and advocate general Altaf Naik both of which were given in entirely difference cases.
The accord lacks legal efficacy as well as moral and political legitimacy. Any order in its implementation will be void in law. It is a pity that the state should bend all rules to buy peace with communal forces including promise to consider compensation for law-breakers. What of compensation to the Valley for the blockade? The parivar in Jammu has already begun asking for more. The Government has not bought peace but trouble. It is gunah-e-bey lazzat (sin without any taste.)
If the state can thus bend its knees before the Sangh parivar on an issue like this, what hopes of justice can Kashmiris entertain when it comes to restoring the raped Article 370 to a status of worth and respect?
by A G Noorani (in: Greater Kashmir, September 3, 2008)
Srinagar, Sep 2: The accord between the Jammu and Kashmir government and the Shri Amarnath Yatra Sangharsh Samiti on 31 August is far worse than the government’s order only three months earlier on 26 May. It grants the SAYSS concessions beyond what the May order did. It is one-sided and marks an abject surrender to violence, blockade and to communal forces. The differences between the order and accord are glaring. Here is a list:
1. The order was made pursuant to a decision on 20 May by the cabinet in which both Jammu and Kashmir were represented. The accord completely ignores Kashmir where the land is to be given. Jammu alone was represented. A week earlier, there was a clampdown in the Valley and top leaders were arrested.
2. Even the controversial order nowhere used the word “exclusive”. The SAYSS felt so emboldened as to demand it and threaten to wreck the deal if it was not conceded. The government yielded in the early hours of 31 August. Para 6A says that the Government “shall set aside for use by Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board exclusively the land in Baltal and Domail”. This order unknown anywhere in the world is cloaked under a lie by calling it “traditionally under use for the annual yatra purpose”. The traditional route for over a century is the Pahalgam route. The Baltal route is a recent demand. It was regarded by the Army and Nitish Sengupta Report as dangerous. It is also unnecessary if the limit of yatris set by the Report (1 lakh) is observed.
3. This violates the citizen’s fundamental right under Art. 19 (1) D to move freely throughout India. The demand of exclusivity was not made even in May 2008 or in decades earlier. It is pure communal aggression using the yatra for political demonstration not religious piety.
4. The duration of use is widened to cover pre and post yatra period. Para 6 C first says that the land will be used “for the duration of the yatra” including the period of preparations and winding up. But the very next para has these sinister words: “The aforesaid land shall be used according to the Board’s requirements from time to time, including for the following”. There follow 9 measures including construction, setting up of the sheds and shops etc. These can be done even beyond the yatra period “from time to time” and “according to the Board’s requirements”; may be all the year around.
5. Para 8 of the order insisted that the land “shall return” to the State. This is dropped in the accord. This accomplishes S.K. Sinha’s objective— permanent use the year round.
6. Also dropped totally is Para 4 on payment for user.
7. Dropped too is Para 6. An undertaking of “foolproof measures against water pollution and Para 7 on payment of fine for damage to the forest. There is a pious provision in accord Para 6 C (ix) among the objectives of land user; namely “undertaking measures relating to … preservation of ecology” etc. Breach entails no fine.
8. The order of 26 May was rescinded on 1 July. The accord will require a fresh order to implement it. By itself the accord has no legal force. Section 2(a) of the J&K Forest (Conservation) Act 1997 says “the Government shall not, except on a resolution of the Council of Ministers based on the advice of the Advisory Committee” constituted under the Act “make any order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose”. The earlier phrase “Council of ministers” merely was revised by an amendment in 2001 and the Forest Advisory Committee’s advice was added and made mandatory. “Council of Ministers” is specific. It is different from “J&K Government” whose powers vest now in the governor alone. The law intentionally provides the resolution as a safeguard. This Council can come into existence only after the next elections. In any case the Forest Advisory Committees advice on 12 July 2007 cannot apply to this new accord which must be vetted afresh by that Committee. It was given before the Supreme Court’s final judgment in the T M Godavarman case on 23 November 2007 which lays down the law and makes important observations on balancing development with protection of environment. Failure to consider it vitiates the decision. Precisely based on misrepresentation of opinion of the deputy CM Muzaffar Hussain Beg and advocate general Altaf Naik both of which were given in entirely difference cases.
The accord lacks legal efficacy as well as moral and political legitimacy. Any order in its implementation will be void in law. It is a pity that the state should bend all rules to buy peace with communal forces including promise to consider compensation for law-breakers. What of compensation to the Valley for the blockade? The parivar in Jammu has already begun asking for more. The Government has not bought peace but trouble. It is gunah-e-bey lazzat (sin without any taste.)
If the state can thus bend its knees before the Sangh parivar on an issue like this, what hopes of justice can Kashmiris entertain when it comes to restoring the raped Article 370 to a status of worth and respect?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
