The editorial in the latest issue of Organiser discusses the recent visit by the Union Minister for Home Affairs Amit Shah to Jammu and Kashmir, and Hurriyat Conference’s yet another call for dialogue. Organiser says that the Hurriyat’s call for talks is at the behest of Pakistan, which hasn’t demonstrated any progress against terrorism emanating from its soil, and praises the Indian government’s zero tolerance towards domestic and international terrorism.
The editorials states: “For the first time in the last thirty years, the separatists did not give a call for Bandh when any Union Minister is visiting the Valley. Is it a change of heart for the Hurriyat? Why is Hurriyat looking for a dialogue option now? And is there any scope for ‘dialogue’ with the perpetrators of violence? These are the fundamental questions we should address while addressing the issue.”
It does not trust the Hurriyat though and mentions that the body has “not changed its stand, and still considers Pakistan as a party to the dialogue process in contrary to the legal and political position of Bharat”. It credits India for isolating “the masters of Hurriyat in Pakistan”, who, it says, are facing a “severe economic crisis”. It says the “Pakistani stooges” have used the “Ramzan ceasefire and around Amarnath Yatra” to “engage in some form of dialogue and use it for some regrouping to perpetrate violence”. It asks India to ignore the offer of dialogue and says that the Hurriyat do not hold any ground in the Valley, nor does it “represent the true voices of J&K”. It quotes Syama Prasad Mokerjee saying “no compromise on the fundamental issue of complete integration of J&K” to be followed as the “cardinal principal” by India.
Panchjanya too has a piece on Hurriyat’s offer for talks. The Hindi magazine says that “experts believe that Hurriyat has done it out of compulsion because people are not willing to believe them anymore” and “to prevent themselves from becoming irrelevant, Hurriyat is being forced to kneel in the changed scenario”.
Panchajanya has devoted its editorial space to raise doubts about the lynching of Tabrez Ansari in Jharkhand, wondering if the communal tones it has been given is part of a conspiracy. “At the first instance, there are two sides to the incident,” it says. Then laying out both the sides, Panchajanya mentions that first, “people taking law into their hands,” and second, “a death, which is suspected to be a murder”. It wonders if the possible murder was at the hands of the “police or the society… or could it be someone else?”
The magazine then succinctly provides the facts of the case saying that while Ansari was beaten up on the suspicion of theft, “but he had not suffered serious injuries”. Though the police and the people are blaming each other, it says, then asks for a proper inquiry. “It should be brought to attention,” it says, that Ansari’s death “has given those who indulge in politics of violence and animosity an issue of their choice”. Rather than seeing this crime as a crime, Panchajanya states that “it has been given the colour of “Muslim utpeedan” or Muslim oppression.
It compares Ansari’s murder to other incidents of violence where the victims were Hindu and comments “it is easy to intensify a crime by dividing it on the lines of sections, religion or caste, but solving them is tougher”. It wonders if society is losing faith in the justice system or obstacles in the path to justice have given birth to anger. It says the so-called intellectuals who see issues of beef, etc are as dangerous those who take up the role of “Robin Hood” and take action on the spot.
The cover story of Organiser is on Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the founder of Bhartiya Jana Sangh, which preceded the BJP. Mookerjee’s 66th death anniversary fell on June 23 and the report starts from BJP acting president JP Nadda’s recent comment that “the whole country demanded an inquiry into Dr Mookerjee’s death” but was ignored by the first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. “It was not just Nehru but Sheikh Abdullah, who was the main culprit in this suspicious death got away with this colossal injustice done to the illegally detained political prisoner who stood for the unity and integrity of the nation”. The package quotes from several stories printed in the magazine at the time of Mookerjee’s death in 1953.
It also reprints a piece authored by Mookerjee himself, a couple of months before his death in Srinagar titled “Let Nehru pause and ponder”. In the article, focusing on Kashmir, Mookerjee wrote that no unit had the right to secede from India. He says: “Our objective is not only to espouse the cause of the people of Jammu and Kashmir but also to resist the increasing intolerance and megalomania of the present leadership in Delhi and Srinagar which, if unchecked, may sound the death knell of democracy in India. Through sacrifice and suffering and peace resistance we expect to rouse the consciousness of the people before which the proudest dictator must bend.”
Compiled by Krishn Kaushik