Good point, but it originates from a bad intent
A furious pilgrim while stoning the Satan (performing a Hajj ritual) was tapped on his shoulder by his fellow pilgrim and told. `Slow man slow, tomorrow you have to deal with the same devil again. Don’t condemn him too much lest you lose your relation with him for ever. After all you two have to face each other when you are back to the business.’ The Haji, thanking his friend for a timely advice, held himself back and left the rest of stones `unthrown’.
Omar Abdullah, the former chief minister of the state, did the same while defending the Article 35-A. Asserting his right as a citizen of the state, he voiced his concern so forcefully and so strongly so far till in the end, someone seems to have tapped him on the shoulder. Wisdom prevailed and he threw a line in defence of Delhi. “Protecting Article 35-A is a tacit acceptance that J&K’s future lies within the Constitution of India, otherwise how would it matter if it were struck down or diluted’. Good point, but it originates from a bad intent.
Omar knows the Article 35-A is the poor remnant of the rights Kashmiris once had. He knows the whole story of fraud that dates back to 1947. He knows it couldn’t have been possible without the collaboration of his blessed grandfather who gladly accepted being disrobed from the majesty of a prime ministership to the post of a chief minister (and could have accepted even lower if denied this too). He knows how constitutional guarantees were used as a beautiful excuse to hide the ugly intent of holding a people against their wish.
The point Omar raises is logical, but incomplete. If the separatist camp demands this right to be protected, it’s not because they accept the validity of the constitution. It’s because they can’t help it. Legally the point is right, but morally facts are facts. If prisoners abide by a jail manual and demand their right, it never means they accept being imprisoned and being governed by the rules of the prison. It means they accept the given and try to salvage the little they can. The irreversible nature of relationship between Delhi and Kashmir has no legal foundations. It is founded on the brute reality of power. And history tells us that power makes its own laws. Such pacts between nations and nations do not stand on legalities, but on a natural law of force that the powerful exercise on the weak. Legalities come later. You can hang first, try later. Occupy first, validate later. They have done no different. It’s been happening since ages. The only thing is to accept fact as fact and not to confuse it with compulsions.
Sheikh Abdullah was the first to sell Kashmir to Delhi and now his generations are the loyal salesmen defending the deal. Mr. Omar! You know it’s your own future that bothers you, not the future of people. You know you can’t go beyond a limit while demanding your right as a Kashmiri and if you do so, your own right as a salesman will be endangered. Politically it’s a smart move to rescue Delhi every time it’s in trouble in Kashmir, but if morality is worth anything all we expect from an enlightened and educated politician like you is a little sense of guilt and shame. Guilt that you are carrying the legacy of a crime Kashmiris are reaping the harvest of. And shame that you are defending it.