There has been a lot of criticism of the Interlocutors assigned with the job of talking to the Kashmir agitators and whether they are doing their assignment in the right way or not – people have gone as far as to question the integrity of the interlocutors, in a left handed way.
I personally from what I have understood, have no doubts about either the personal integrity or their moral fortitude of any of them. Of course there is the possibility that my take on them is not based on facts, but from what everyone has seen of them in their public/semi-public positions, there is no inherent reason to doubt either.
That matter resolved, the problems expressed about the interlocutors chiefly are that there is no political representation (amongst them – from which ever political stream) and that they are actually talking to the people who preach or actually believe in sedition from India.
Let us see the objection of no-political-representation first.
The chief opposition party is seemingly put off because there is no political representation amongst the interlocutors. The ruling party and other major formations don’t seem to have any problems with this.
I remember that the principal opposition party of today wanted to explore the possibility of a US style Presidential form of government, when they seemed unstoppable during Mr. Vajpayee’s days [1991] (and even as recent as 2009).
Now for a party that believes in Presidential form of government, should have absolutely no reservations about appointing non-political or eminent or even capable persons holding opposing views, even as a part of the government. Witness President Obama and Mr. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defence. No one, either Democrats or Republicans question his integrity, when he goes about his job.
So this rhetoric of the BJP against inclusion of political persons is against their own principles – if they owe up to them.
Thus disappears the 1st objection. TBC …
I personally from what I have understood, have no doubts about either the personal integrity or their moral fortitude of any of them. Of course there is the possibility that my take on them is not based on facts, but from what everyone has seen of them in their public/semi-public positions, there is no inherent reason to doubt either.
That matter resolved, the problems expressed about the interlocutors chiefly are that there is no political representation (amongst them – from which ever political stream) and that they are actually talking to the people who preach or actually believe in sedition from India.
Let us see the objection of no-political-representation first.
The chief opposition party is seemingly put off because there is no political representation amongst the interlocutors. The ruling party and other major formations don’t seem to have any problems with this.
I remember that the principal opposition party of today wanted to explore the possibility of a US style Presidential form of government, when they seemed unstoppable during Mr. Vajpayee’s days [1991] (and even as recent as 2009).
Now for a party that believes in Presidential form of government, should have absolutely no reservations about appointing non-political or eminent or even capable persons holding opposing views, even as a part of the government. Witness President Obama and Mr. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defence. No one, either Democrats or Republicans question his integrity, when he goes about his job.
So this rhetoric of the BJP against inclusion of political persons is against their own principles – if they owe up to them.
Thus disappears the 1st objection. TBC …
No comments:
Post a Comment