news details |
|
|
| Revocation of 35(A) will abrogate accession | | | Sunaina Malik | 8/9/2018 8:40:36 PM |
| Friends, it seems that perhaps nature has written an unending period of pain, agony, despair, tears, restlessness, insurgency, mourning and killings in the fate of we people of Jammu and Kashmir. It is because of this our fate is not leaving our eyes to dry of tears even for a small span of time. Irony here is, even whole world knows that we the people of JK have been struggling for restoration of our rights in state since long time but our authority, inspite of putting ointment on our profusely bleeding wounds, is sprinkling salt over them by bringing in discussion the topic like revocation of Article 35A which confer the right of permanent resident on us.
Friends, no body can deny the fact that jammu kashmir state was an independent princely state prior 1947. it was under the rule of Maharajas. Under war circumstances, Maharaja Hari singh, the then ruler of JK, decided to accede the state to indian union on 26 October 1947 but with certain terms and conditions. The Maharaja ceded control to india only over defence, external affairs and communucation. Those terms and conditions were later on en scripted in Article 370 of Indian Constitution in year 1952. To your revelation, Article 35A is nothing but an extension of 370 because it is exercising power conferred by clause (1) of Article 370 of Indian Constitution. Main reason behind drafting Article 35A was to further strengthen Article 370 which confer special status to JK.
As we all know that in these days credibility Article 35 A is in heated discussion along the length and breath of India because an RSS think tank called Jammu kashmir study centre challenged it by filing a petition in Delhi high court on july 2015. To your revelation, no body can challenge all those sections of India constitution which confer special status to state of Jammu and Kashmir because jk was not won by India through war but Maharaja had given her permission to rule on it but after obeying all the conditions mentioned in deed of accession and if any one try to breech all those conditions it will revoke the link between jk and india. Right of permanent residents cannot be revoked as mentioned in deed of accession ("Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make any law for this state authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose, but I hereby undertake that should the Dominion for the purposes of a Dominion law which applies in this state deem it necessary to acquire any land, I will at their request acquire the land at their expense or if the land belongs to me transfer it to them on such terms as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice Of India")
More over all those allegations made by that NGo regarding the credibility of Article 35A are base less and can be countered by following answers
(1) if though Article 35 A was not added to constitution by following procedure as prescribed for amendment of constitution of India under Article 368 but it is mere an extension of clause 1 of Article 370 of Indian Constitution which is not in violation of amendment of constitution of India under Article 368.
(2)Article 35 A is not at all discriminatory. Because if india is not giving any right of permanent residents to foreigners then how kashmir being an independent state could have conferred PR to foreigners.
(3)This section is not at all discriminatory to women rights. This issue was settled in 2002 by a Full Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court headed by Justice V K Jhanji, which, after hearing the matter that was pending for over 26 years, ruled that J&K women marrying outsiders wouldn't lose their right to a share in ancestral property, right to work, education, inheritance and even adoption.
In the conclusion, i want to say relation between JK and india was started on the emotion of trust over the world largest democracy but sorry to say present scenario of JK is speaking quite inverse story. India being a choosed ruler is supposed to give us our every right as she has promised by not encouraging the voices raised in support of revocation of Article 35A. Any step towards revocation will add more fuel to already burning flames of state and we all know fires are left only with ash not living hearts and great ruler would not prefer to rule over ashes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
