After all, mountains would not fall by just change of Government. It is a routine affair. No one is indispensable. It is this kind of mindset which pushed a majority of the Congress legislators and some ministers to the wall, who threatened to resign if by November 2, Azad was not asked to take over the reins of power as per the agreement. The Congress MLAs would have even ‘rebelled’ and formed another group—as had happened in many other states recently—and horse-trading would have begun, inimical to the State’s bigger interests.

By taking this sagacious decision, the Congress boss has not only saved her party from disintegration, but also moved away from creating instability in the sensitive state, at a time when the earthquake sufferers are in dire need of the ‘healing touch’ therapy. But remember, it is the Army, the Air Force and the paramilitary forces, which have borne the brunt of the tragedy and rendered a yeoman service to the suffering masses. Political parties rather created only hassles in the fair distribution of relief material in their pockets of influence, especially in Uri and Titwal area near LoC. Relief operations have been the Army’s forte, unfortunately to the chagrin of the militants.

Be as it may, Sonia Gandhi had offered the incumbent Chief Minister Mufti Sayeed to stay up in the office for a few more months, keeping in view the prevailing syndrome: ‘ To change the Chief Minister, or not to change’. That was the question which had haunted her mind. She was wrongly advised that relief work and the ongoing India-Pakistan peace talks will get a serious setback if the status quo was not maintained.

The Mufti would not agree for any ad hoc agreement. On the contrary, he wanted either full three years of the remaining six- year term, or at least one year, to be followed by fresh elections. It seems he was not for transfer of power to the Congress even after one year, but to dissolve the Assembly and seek fresh mandate. Believably, he was recalcitrant. This shows his sincerity. He wanted to take full advantage and credit for applying ‘balm’ to the sufferers’ wounds, and thus bury the Congress for ever, which he had once nurtured to the best of his ability.

But for his years in the PDP and his association with the former Prime Minister V P Singh, the Mufti is a Congressman. Politically, he was born in the Congress and had initially ‘served’ under the leadership of then PCC Chief Mangat Ram Sharma (Deputy Chief Minister in the outgoing ministry).

Naturally, Sonia Gandhi, advised among others by former union minister Dr Karan Singh, turned down the Mufti’s demand. She changed her tactics. She was given a wrong impression that by changing Mufti, relief work would suffer and peace-process would get derailed.

It is not because of him that India and Pakistan resolved to go for peace. The state has to help in accelerating the peace process, whatever its nature. Some unidentified Congress leaders were against the transfer of power, as in their view ‘taking over power’ at this juncture would lead to the ‘burial’ of the party in the valley. But it is not acceptable.

Though Congress has not a strong base in the valley, it does not mean the PDP, a newly-born party, rather we may call it as the ‘B’ team of the Congress, is not the people’s party in the valley. PDP and the Congress are two faces of the same coin. It is in fact the National Conference, led by former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah and his son Omar Abdullah, which is a mass-based party in the valley. Winning or loosing one or two elections hardly matters in a democratic set up.

After all, there has been a deal between the Congress and the PDP to run the state administration by rotation. PDP, though a junior partner, was asked by Sonia Gandhi to run the government for the first three years after the 2002 crucial elections, in which the NC was defeated, but marginally. PDP has 16 seats as against 20 held by the Congress, in the state Assembly.

I wonder how regime-change can hamper the ongoing peace process. Policies would remain the same, based on a common minimum programme. Is it necessary to have a Chief Minister from the valley? To raise eyebrows for a Chief Minister hailing from the Hindu-dominated Jammu region is irritating.

While veteran Muslim leader in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), Sardar Mohammed Abdul Qayyum Khan has called for restoration of maharaja’s rule in Jammu and Kashmir, some of our ’veterans’, having their own brand of secularism, are not happy even with a Muslim Chief Minister from Jammu region, not to speak of a Hindu as a Chief Minister.

A leading politician has been repeatedly asking for installing a Muslim Chief Minister in Bihar. How shameful for the nation, espousing the cause of secular democracy.

Inculcating such feelings is dangerous and against the democratic norms and behaviour.

Mufti should not get full credit for bringing normalcy in the beleaguered state. The credit goes to people, who braved terrorists’ bullets and bomb blasts hurled at election rallies and at polling booths during historic elections in 2002. The entire world was witness to it.

It was during Mufti’s time (when he was union Home minister in V P Singh’s government) that militancy had started and remained at its zenith.

People wanted peace after the 2002 elections and preferred death than dishonour at the hands of the militants. They were scared of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. They did not want Azadi, but administrators like Azad, even though he is from Jammu. Tourists came to the valley, after normalcy was restored, though partially.


Courtesy : Syndicate Features

Printer-Friendly Version