| |
EDITORIAL
Terms Of Engagement
Let Vajpayee talk to the Hurriyat,
politely but firmly.
 As
self-important entities go, there are few to beat the All-Party Hurriyat
Conference (APHC). A conglomeration of close-minded individuals with a
small following in Jammu and Kashmir and a much larger audience across
the Radcliffe Line, the APHC thinks it is the key to resolving south Asia's
top dispute. Between suggesting independence for Kashmir-so unviable an
option that nobody short of a self-determination fundamentalist will recommend
it-and accession with Pakistan, the APHC holds no solution acceptable
to India. As the ultimate busybody, it has spent the past few months agonising
over the exact composition of a team it sought to send to Pakistan and
then arrogating to itself the role of intermediary between Delhi and Islamabad.
Now it wants to meet General Pervez Musharraf during his visit to India.
Before that, it wants to talk to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
Of all the Hurriyat's demands that final one is, to be fair, unexceptionable.
There is nothing wrong with the prime minister
having a chat with the Hurriyat's leaders. As Indian citizens- whether
they like it or not, that is their legal identity-they are entitled to
it. Exaggerated as perceptions of its influence may sometimes be, the
Hurriyat does play a part in Jammu and Kashmir, in a polity that-especially
after the cease-fire -is being held hostage by the manic Lashkar-e-Toiba.
While engaging the Hurriyat Vajpayee has to emphasise two points. First,
he cannot possibly set aside all his work and enter into day to day negotiations
with just one group in one state. If the Hurriyat is so keen on getting
its voice heard, it can have prolonged meetings with K.C. Pant, the prime
minister's special envoy to the Valley. Second, the Hurriyat does not
hold any sort of veto. It cannot be recognised as the sole representative
of Kashmiris. It is just one of many actors-and a visit to 7 Race Course
Road won't change that.
Zero
Tolerance Zone
Ban Gadar, outlaw the NBA — India's
'lathi charge' society.
 Five
former chief ministers of Gujarat, representing both the Congress and
the BJP have signed a petition demanding a ban on the Narmada Bachao Andolan
(NBA). Much can be said about the NBA and its belligerent leader, Medha
Patkar. It can be called irresponsible, not least for rejecting an unfavourable
Supreme Court verdict. Patkar's exertions have frustrated those who believe
the Sardar Sarovar Dam-which the lady opposes-will change life for millions
in Gujarat and, to a lesser degree, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Yet
to suggest that the NBA be banned-for among other "crimes" alleged
income-tax evasion-is not just a supreme overreaction, it is a joke. It
also speaks volumes for the quality of Indian democracy, particularly
of politicians whose instinctive answer to dissent is the truncheon.
NBA is not the issue here. The sheer audacity
of the Congress-BJP alliance is. It exhibits the mentality that gave India
the Emergency, finding a kindred spirit in the assortment of unemployed-and
unemployable-youth rampaging against a Hindi film that allegedly insults
Islam. Mumbai's film factory can be accused of many crimes-often stretching
credulity, occasionally injuring aesthetic sensibilities. To charge it
with a campaign against a particular religion, however, is to attribute
to it a design it is incapable of. There are ways and modes of protest
in a democracy. Menacing threats, blackmail and bans-whether instigated
by the Shiv Sena, the Ali Sena or the grandchildren of the Vanar Sena-are
certainly not among them. As the Satanic Verses episode made clear 15
years ago, the polity is only too eager to take prohibitory measures in
the "larger public interest". If you can't punish Veerappan,
why not make do with a Medha Patkar or a Sunny Deol. Marie Antoinette
couldn't have said it better.
|
|
METRO TODAY
Web
Exclusives
