DMK Forces To Ponder Over The Afzal Question

The mask finally came out today. It became clear to everyone within India and outside that this Indian government handles its diplomatic relations on the basis of internal politics and aspirations. The Dravida Munetra Kazhagam has withdrawn support to the UPA government led by Manmohan Singh over the issue of alleged killing of LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil) by the Sri Lankan establishment. The open secret lies unravelled now.

It would be interesting to listen to those voices, which questioned the validity of Pakistan's National Assembly in passing a resolution condemning hanging of Afzal Guru. Our Parliament wasted no time in giving a befitting reply by passing another resolution condemning the Afzal resolution of Pakistan's National Assembly. And, everyone including this writer has reliably learnt that the DMK under M Karunanidhi voted favouring the resolution passed by Parliament. Now, where is the so-called ethical or moral difference between the equations.

We generally elect our leaders on the basis of our ability to believe or disbelieve in them, and we judge our leaders on the basis of their past (the most recent) performance. Sometimes, their intent also plays a significant role in the election process. Now, let's think separately the intent and performance of our political class in the aforesaid two cases, and then have a look at the real diplomatic and political spectre.

The Afzal Resolution
 
National Assembly of Pakistan passed that resolution because of two broad reasons: one, Afzal's connection to Kashmir (and attack on Indian Parliament) and two, religious appeal, which played the key role in partition and subsequent political confusion over the status, standing and stature of Jammu and Kashmir.

First of all, Pakistan feels that Kashmir is an Islamic problem and that's why an unfinished agenda of the partition and hence, it has its stake in deciding the fate and future of the state. It has fought not less than three wars on this issue, and has been supporting, helping, channelizing, designing and propagating terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and rest of India.

So, when someone from the same school of thought carries out or allegedly helps carrying out an act of terror, Pakistan is bound to have some hand in the act and stake in the future of the same person. It may present a different face to the world but within, it knows the reality. Hence, Pakistan’s resolution on Afzal Guru, whose hanging was confirmed by the Supreme Court and executed by the Indian government.

The resolution was viewed as an affront on India by millions of electors or stakeholders in our democracy. Sensing their mood, the elected ones showcased their intent in snubbing Pakistan with a counter-resolution asserting that "Jammu and Kashmir has been and shall always remain the integral part of India", that hanging of Afzal Guru.was an internal matter of India, and also that Afzal Guru was a part of the conspiracy hatched in Pakistan and sponsored by Pakistani establishment that saw attack on Parliament. Isn't there some inherent contradiction in our approach?

The Tamil Angle
 
Now, consider the government's stand on Sri Lanka's approach in dealing with remnants of LTTE, which was a proscribed outfit in India till it existed in force. The island nation's government has been accused of committing war crimes on the surrendered members of LTTE and the Tamil population of the Elam region. It is a serious human rights issue of international importance. But, it is happening within the sovereign boundaries of Sri Lanka and hence, an internal matter of that country. But then, the population involved is Tamil, which evokes emotional appeal across the international waters in an Indian state.

Tamil Nadu is under AIADMK rule while DMK is in opposition and so, quite naturally it feels the pulse of Tamil people's emotion and anger. The same DMK has been a partner in all crimes with other UPA partners at the centre. It could easily dictate the matters vis-a-vis India's southern neighbour in past nine years. But, in the wake of Italian marine goof up, better sense has started prevailing over the UPA government. So, after going far ahead of expressing concern over human rights' issue in Sri Lanka, the Manmohan Singh government has finally decided to see whether antagonizing the island nation is in India's favour given the Chinese propensity in the region.

If India genuinely felt that Pakistan's National Assembly's resolution on  Afzal was an attack on India's sovereignty, can it forget the same principle in dealing with Sri Lanka simply because DMK is part of the ruling coalition? And, if India can interfere with Sri Lanka (to safeguard its strategic interest) why can't Pakistan do same with India? Also, why should India choose/ pick the nation with which it has to interfere; simply put, why does India choose not to apply pressure on Maldieves, Italy, Nepal or Bangladesh for that matter to safeguard its strategic interests, while it goes on to interfere with an essentially (going by India's own definition) internal matter of Sri Lanka?

The present politico-diplomatic-strategic state of affairs of the UPA 2.0 points to utter indecision. The government seems to be so indecisive that it has failed to realize that indecision was its earlier decision. Under the circumstances, can India be taken seriously on the matters of external affairs, outside or within?

Custodial Death: Omar In Pain, Congress Eyes Gain

Custodial death of National Conference worker, Syed Mohammad Yousuf has fuelled the sleeping aspirations of not only the PDP in Jammu and Kashmir but also the friend and ally, Congress. The alliance partner of Abdullah’s National Conference seems to be allying with the PDP of Mehbooba Mufti, although, covertly, in keeping Chief Minister Omar Abdullah in discomfort. As the plot is thickening over the death of Syed Yousuf after Abdullah Junior handed him over to police, the Congress leaders of Kashmir have begun to romanticize their brightening prospects anticipating the downfall of their ally and friend in state politics. Even the political observers in the
state feel that the Congress could be the real beneficiary of the ongoing crisis, which got worsened on Saturday morning, when Omar Abdullah’s police resorted to baton charge the PDP protestors demanding his resignation. The separatists, too, have joined Mehbooba Mufti in baying for Omar’s blood.

Now, consider this. Omar Abdullah will be completing his half tenure of six years in first week of January next year giving the Congress an opportunity to think of taking the relay baton from an alienated chief minister, though the two parties are not at an agreement of transfer of power like the one that the congress had with the PDP in the previous regime. The great opportunist party, that the congress is, will not shy away from making things practically unworkable for Omar Abdullah. And, if the signals emerging from both the Congress headquarters and the stakeholders in the Jammu and Kashmir politics are to be believed, the party is well on its course.

The only thing that is perhaps withholding the Congressmen from the valley from speaking their minds out is Rahul Gandhi’s personal friendship with Omar Abdullah and the former’s apparent commitment to the latter to keep intact his chair till the very last workable situation in the state. But, during his recent visit to the valley, Rahul Gandhi had give a patient hearing to Congress leaders wishing for a change of guard in Srinagar.

Notwithstanding, some of the state Congress leaders have started openly demanding a Congress chief minister in Jammu and Kashmir post-January, 2012 subject to approval by party president, Sonia Gandhi. This demand had begun as early as in May and June this year, when state Congress leaders asked for rotation of Chief Minister’s chair as they were unhappy with Omar capturing all the limelight with Congressmen being treated only as poor cousins in the corridors of power in the state. And, senior leaders including Dr Karan Singh, Saifuddin Soz and Makhan Lal Fotedar had assured the junior leaders of conveying their sentiments to the party high command in New Delhi. The views have come to take deeper grounds now in party headquarters and lobbying is underway to convince the top leadership to think on those lines and negotiate with the Abdullahs.

Also at work are two old camps of J&K Congress, namely those of union minister Ghulam Nabi Azad and J&K PCC president Saifuddin Soz with former in being favour at the 10, Janpath. Soz supporters find a realistic chance for him to get the coveted seat in Srinagar, but sources also indicate strongly that Azad may be interested in the job if hints come from the top. This internal tussle for supremacy in Srinagar may prove beneficial for Omar Abdullah but then PDP is also, according to sources close to Mehbooba Mufti, ready to support a Congress government should National Conference be dumped. So, the Congress is weighing its options while Omar tries hard to save his chair and salvage his image and re-enforce his command in the state. The political situation in Jammu and Kashmir looks tailor-made for a Congress comeback lest Omar finds a magic wand to ward off all the ‘evil’ forces.