IkkJutt Jammu dares elements in BJP/RSS to scuttle the Modi-Shah epoch changes in J&K.

IkkJutt Jammu demands categorical assurances from Union Home Minister that no administrative reorganisation of UT of J&K will be done which will promote Greater Muslim Kashmir objectives.

Addressing a press conference here today, Prof. Hari Om, Patron IkkJutt Jammu said that the rebuttal by a section of local BJP leadership including Minister of State in Prime Minister’s Office Dr Jitinder Singh who kept silent for almost a month while media quoting sources within the government brought to the fore that administrative reorganisation of joining Muslim Majority north Jammu with South Kashmir does not carry credibility with people of Jammu.

He said that BJP local leadership has for a long time behaved as a mentally retarded child. It was manifest when Jihadi Mehbooba Mufti led PDP brought Jammu to the brink of a catastrophe. The silence of BJP on Rassana case and continuous humiliation for last 6 years is a matter of concern..

Prof. Hari Om said that this BJP leadership has been a mute spectator while a hegemonic and Kashmir centric narrative is being promoted in the aftermath of reorganisation of J&K state and neutralisation of Article 370. Inventing of a hegemonic political Lexicon like Kashmironomics is  humiliating for Jammu.

Hegemonic discourses don’t promote participatory democracy. Muslim hegemonic discourse that BJP is promoting is actually promoting communalism and not the expressions that pinpoint to such malaise.

Prof. Hari Om said “We feel a large segment of BJP and Sangh Parivaar who in the past had supported a peace engagement with Pakistan on the subversive ideas of Shared Sovereignty, Porous borders and demilitarisation have become active from within BJP and Sangh to ensure the failure of epoch making changes which Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah brought about on August 5, 2019.

Ankur Sharma, Chairman IkkJutt Jammu needs congratulations for bringing BJP out of slumber and preempting a sinister conspiracy, he said.

We want once againd to tell GOI to shun its Jammu blindness. Jammu is neither a doormat nor a sandbag. Anybody who treats Jammu like that will be shunned by Jammu.

Jammu leadership of BJP should come out of its paralysis, stop behaving as parasites and cure its mental retardation.

Replying to Epilogue media questions about the veracity of creation of new divisions and seemingly adhoc mechanism in the aftermath of August 5, Prof Hari Om said, ” Two major newspapers of National repute carried the news about constitution of new divisions and involvement of some people in PMO office, The proposal is ready pending a final consideration. We say that there are certain enemies with who wish to weaken and defame the PM and Home Minister. Adding we can never dream our PM and HM who took this epoch making decision can be a part of this exercise but the enemies with who donot wish the success of these historic decisions are trying to scuttle. It was in year 1950 that Dixon plan ( Sir Owen Dixon) was proposed to divide the state along Chenab river but Pt Nehru did not accept it.”

  • Owen Dixon, an Australian jurist chosen by the United Nations to mediate between India and Pakistan on the J&K issue, in his report of September 1950, suggested a package, which did not find acceptance from India. 
  • The Plan had assigned Ladakh to India and northern areas and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir to Pakistan, besides splitting Jammu between the two. 

Our press conference day before compelled the local leadership, Farooq Khan, Brig Anil Gupta and  Minister of State in Prime Minister’s Office Dr Jitinder Singh to refute the news, however we are demanding a statement from our Home Minister. to rebutt in haste.”

Answering another question on a seemingly adhoc mechanism post August 5, and call for Naya Kashmir Prof Hari Om said, “Naya Kashmir is not new, Sheikh Abdullah had propounded it in 1944, adding thoough we respect the Constitution of India, but we must know 95% of the COI finds its roots to Government of India Act 1935, so we are actually following a British legacy which was always against the interests of this Nation.”

Leave a Reply