Amarnath land transfer dispute amplifies dichotomy

Our politicians belong to a special caste - they are criminals. They deserve the treatment, the Protagonist, actor Vikram metes out to villains in the movie Anniyan. Our Kashmiri parasites (the politicians, not the public) are slightly different lot - Garuda Puranam may sound communal, and hence may need to be treated in a secular manner.

From their actions and reactions, they have managed to amplify the dichotomy that prevails in the region. What baffles me the most is the absolute lack of contrition on the part of these self-styled figure heads of Kashmiri society.

A mere environmental issue has been given a communal touch, thus fomenting trouble in the name of Islam and communalism.

Amarnath Shrine Board was formed under the aegis of J&K assembly in 2000, to help support Amarnath Yatra. Keep in mind, Amarnath Yatra is successful all these years because of material and logistic support from the Kashmiri public.

Nobody is opposing these facilities or the pilgrims. That's a sad and hidden truth in this political fiasco.

The land transfer issue is about small piece of land that was acquired and transfered to the Amarnath Shrine Board to provide lavatory & other facilities for pilgrims. Many such facilities were inexistence atleast for 20-30 years...frequently upgraded, improved and increased to meet the growing needs of Yatris. Amarnath board has transfered several such portable toilets to the public in response to 2005 earthquake.

This is what Vijay K. Sazawal of Indo-American forum has to say in The Outlook, in response to communally sensitive articles appearing in a local Srinagar daily:

"Sadly, the daily would not tell its readers that the J&K government had after 1996 -- when 250 pilgrims died due to heavy snowfall during the yatra and before the passage of the SASB Act in the state assembly in 2000 -- built a number of permanent comfort facilities for pilgrims. In fact, the earliest such structures were built in 1980s. Also, the media conveniently ignored that the SASB had donated most of its tear-down comfort facility kits to the people of Tangdhar and Uri after the October 2005 earthquake and there was an urgent need to build replacement facilities along the yatra route."

Here are the dick-heads involved in communalizing this political saga:

• Hurriyat Conference - Umbrella organization of Kashmiri separatist parties based in Srinagar, a miscellaneous group of people who will travel to "New Delhi, India" for their medical treatments, expenses either underwritten by the Indian government or by some unknown entity across the border. Very happy to stoke the fire, just before their trip to Pakistan (on an Indian passport, I guess) for "talks".

• Mufti Mohammed Syed - Remember Rubaiya Syed incident under the august Prime Ministership of VP Singh in 1989? Response to the kidnapping is the basis of viewing the Indian state as weak. This guy, I read somewhere, apparently has a Masters degree in harmonizing communal tensions. His party withdrew support over land transfer issue.

• Omar Abdullah - His marked deviation from the script while speaking on the vote of confidence in Loksabha recently was unnecessary. He should have stuck to the topic of the debate, the Indo-US nuclear deal, and not speak about Amarnath Yatra issue. You cannot allowed to be provoked, if you are budding and promising talent.

Check the speech out yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mr2Fjw5A0A

Omar Abdullah, in my opinion, was a fantastic Minister of State of External Affairs in the erstwhile NDA regime. He is well respected in the political circles as a budding young talent and thus eagerly listened to by the public. His vote of confidence speech was blighted by references to Amarnath issue, no doubt about it. His speech contributed to aggravated passions in the Jammu region.

• Media: Our English media is largely influenced by writers from JNU school of pseudo-secularism in New Delhi. They have "tailor-made" jobs available in leftist oriented Education ministry, ASI, Politburo of certain parties and in several newspapers/magazines.

Omar Abdullah's speech, according to some in the media, has elevated him to the national scene. What rubbish are they delivering to us?

1. Listen to this "Walk the talk" by Shekhar Gupta which I had the benefit of watching it live.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNXRsjY9Lhk

2. This link has some information, that was completely ignored by our mainstream, English media.
http://www.anindianmuslim.com/2008/07/muslims-favouring-hindu-stand-on.html

Narendra Modi may be right in saying, this issue could be India's Shah Bano II. Knowing what happened after Shah Bano I, do we want a Shah Bano II?

My political preferences and compulsions apart, I am quiet skeptical of Narendra Modi as India's next Home Minister.

How does the current government feel?

STOP COMPLAINING

CHECK THIS OUT...

Sonia's Decision

Sonia Gandhi, on Tuesday May 18th 2004, decisively declined to be the Prime Minister of India.

At hindsight, what a decision this was? Rahul said it right. Who else would decline the PM's post?

Sonia's stature in India has improved and with the exception of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, she dwarfed every other politician worth his/her salt in India. For now, atleast.

Infact, NDA was taken by surprise. By one stroke, Sonia has taken away the shine off the NDA's new ball.

I would like to convey my thanks to Sonia Gandhi for the decision.

In this article, I would like to point out two factors that led to her withdrawal. Also, for those who felt betrayed by her refusal, I have penned some reasons for digestion.

Withdrawal
There are two major reasons, in order of importance, which has contributed to her decision.

First and the foremost issue, is the future of her son and daughter.

Sonia is only 57, which is like adolescence in Indian political landscape. She does not want to spoil the "bright" future prospects of her two children.

Sonia's interest in the Congress party is directly related to future prospects of her children, despite her public posture. This was not the case in 1991 - immediately after Rajiv’s assassination, because her children were too young to hold positions of power -
either in the party or in the government.

In 1998, when she thought that Congress was going to the dogs, she stepped in at the right time just to feel welcomed.

Second issue is her knowledge of Bofors kickbacks.

The issue is certainly not over. I am sure she continues to hear this from her inner-voice constantly.

In this regard, it may be worthwhile to recall that, Martin Ordbo, the man who knows all,
said that the truth would go to the grave along with him.

Additionally, Sonia Gandhi's refusal to answer questions pertaining to the issue is an indicator of guilt.

If her conscience is clear, why then refuse?

Bangaru Laxman, former BJP president appeared on Karan Thapar's program in BBC (sometime in 2001) to answer Tehelka related questions - unscripted. Sonia knows very well, she is not used to giving interviews without preparations and pre-conditions. Ask Vir Sanghvi, the present editor of the Hindustan Times.

Betrayal of the mandate
Upon her decision, there have been cries from Congress cronies about her betrayal of the mandate.

Did Sonia betray the mandate? A firm NO.

Why?

The verdict was clear. Good-bye NDA, for its development and good governance plank.

Sonia knows the meaning of the word "mandate" (having gone to study English in England) and certainly realized the fractured verdict. It is not a verdict for her, but against NDA. Why then would vote percentage of Congress and BJP reduce?

Contrary to the popular opinion, Sonia cares less about her foreign origin issue and public sentiments over it. Certainly not in 1999. Why then now?

Sonia, personally, was unfazed by the threat of uprising by the NDA, led by BJP on the issue of her foreign origin. This is not true of her allies though.

Had Sonia accepted the post, foreign origin and Bofors would have taken the spotlight and put her children, Congress, Left and other allies on the back foot.

More than anything else, she did not want to jeopardize (true to her Indian ethos as claimed by her cohorts) the future of her children in Indian politics.

As a Prime Minister, she would be compelled to answer Bofors related questions in Parliament. She did not want to risk the future of her children by exposing herself.

I truly believe the above are the only two reasons why she declined the post.