Biased Interlocutors' Report

Biased Interlocutors' Report

"... the interlocutors made it clear that J&K has been, is and will continue to be part of the Indian Union" says Dileep Padgaonkar in his writeup "A Ray of Hope for J&K (TOI, July 26, 2014). He further mentions that the problems mentioned by the people of this turmoil-ridden state revolved around poor governance, lack of economic and social development, corruption, etc. At the end of the piece, he claims the interlocutors' report of being people-centric. But, unfortunately, the so-called people-centric report was neither people-centric nor unbiased.

It was a misrepresented, exaggerated and a biased report. The report was erroneous both in its approach as well as conclusion.I want to bring this fact in the knowledge of the interlocutors that your approach to study the socio-political scenario of the state was wrong. This state can't be studied in terms of one uniform state. The three divisions of this state are different from each other in terms of mindset, political preferences, demography and what not! Therefore, your argument of the report being the state's report, is not justified. This dissimilarity between Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh needs to be given the foremost concern and importance since this dissimilarity is something unique to this state. So, the conclusions and findings that you've put forward in no way represent all the people of our state. Your findings that I quoted in the opening lines of this writeup can't represent the whole state at the first place. Moreover, perhaps the respected writer/interlocutor had not made proper research regarding the state he was going to study. For the kind information of the author, I want to mention this historical fact that this state wasn't a part of India. It was only the outcome of that unfortunate accession that had declared the state a Protectionate state temporarily to stay with India. This nullifies your argument that I've mentioned in the opening para of this writeup.

Moving ahead, let me quote another line from your writeup: "- close to 80 percent- was in the nature of grievances about poor governance, lack of economic and social development and corruption". Very true indeed, but not the only findings that the interlocutors unveiled! Being a member of a small delegation of University students, I also received a chance to meet the interlocutors at BGSB University. We talked to them at length. All kinds of concerns and issues were discussed and brought in the knowledge of the interlocutors. Now, in their report, it was seen that they've turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the most of concerns. You were informed about the human rights violations and exploitation of the youth of the Valley but you didn't mention that in your report! You threw these findings to the garbage bin while framing the final conclusion so that your report shapes up exactly like what your senders wanted it to be, unreal and unveiling.I lament how can you be so selective and choosy as to what to mention and what not to!

(Abrar Ul Mustafa is Columnist in Greater Kashmir published from Kashmir Valley)