news details |
|
|
| Omar says one thing, Vakil says another | | NC, Congress and land in J&K | | Neha
JAMMU, May 30: The suggestion that there should be a debate on article 370 has triggered a massive controversy. The Kashmir-based parties, both the so-called mainstream like the NC and the Congress, separatist outfits like the JKLF and APHC (Geelani), other Valley-based communal elements and "secular" parties like the CPI, the CPI-M opposing the suggestion and the parties like the BJP, the Shiv Sena and the Lok Janshakti Party and organizations like the RSS, the VHP and so on taking on the votaries of Article 370 and insisting on a debate on this controversial Article.
The votaries of Article 370 have been putting forth ridiculous and unsustainable arguments in defence, but without hinting at good or evil effects of this sinister provision that is the mother of all ills facing the state and its people, including Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, in all the three regions. Interestingly, they are not one as far as their arguments are concerned. They are speaking differently.
Take, for example, NC working president and J&K CM Omar Abdullah and JKPCC vice-president and member AICC and former Minister in the Ghulam Nabi Azad-led coalition Government Abdul Gani Vakil. Omar Abdullah has been saying that Article 370 has nothing to do with the question of citizenship of the state and that it is the 1927 State Subject Definition that bars the "non-state Subjects" from acquiring land or immovable property in the State and obtain jobs under the State government. He has said so repeatedly during the last three days in his interviews. The archaic State Subject definition or the 1927 State subject laws, which were enacted to ban the entry of dubious elements from British India, including Punjab, so that they could not play any mischief in Kashmir by joining hands with the anti-state forces or anti-Dogra forces, were incorporated in the Jammu & Kashmir constitution, which was adopted in 1956 and enforced in January 1957.
It needs to be underlined that the entire Kashmiri leadership had consistently opposed the State Subject definition of 1927. Leave all this side.
The point is that Omar Abdullah has been claiming that Article 370 has nothing to do with the citizenship rights or the rights concerning the land in the state and jobs under the State Government. And let's accept his claim for the sake of argument.
But what does senior Congress leader and a confidant of Azad say on the issue that has culminated in a massive row? He on Thursday said that the BJP wants to "grab land in Jammu & Kashmir and facilitate settlement of communal forces" there. "The BJP's policy of grabbing land in the state to facilitate settlement of communal forces here cannot be permitted and not an inch of land of the state will be given or provided to such forces," he said, adding that after accession, "Article 370 has proved a vital bridge between India and Jammu & Kashmir and Congress will never allow anybody to weaken this bridge". This shows that the NC and the Congress do not have the same view on the right to acquire land or immovable property in the state.
The leadership of these two parties must decide as to what they should speak while commenting on the issue that has become a topic of national debate.
They are in the government and they should be clear about what they say. At the same time, the issue under debate is not whether or not Article 370 should be abrogated.
The issue under debate is the implications of this article. Retain it if it is beneficial to the people and the state and abolish it and the county as a whole.
It's no use beating about the bush and taking recourse to technicalities. They should remember that no constitution and no law is sacrosanct. The constitutions are made and repealed as per the needs of the people and exigencies of the time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
