news details |
|
|
| G M Shah's disclosure gives lie to Geelani's claims | | Reverting to pre 1953 status | | Early Times Special Correspondent
Jammu | Dec 7
The controversial former J&K Chief Minister, who headed a government of NC defectors for a short period, has given lie to Tehrike Hurriyat leader Sayeed Ali Shah Geelani, who claimed that Sheikh Abdullah missed the opportunity to get passed a resolution in the J&K state assembly calling for restoration of pre 1953 status, despite the fact that the National Conference commanded absolute majority in the state assembly and that Sheikh Abdullah had rejected a proposal in this regard made by Sayeed Geelani and Abdul Gani Lone. G M Shah who was then a minister in Sheikh Abdullah led NC government in the state and was the closest confident of the Sheikh, putting the record straight, has blamed both Ali Shah Geelani and Abdul Gani Lone for back tracking from their earlier suggestion of moving a resolution in the assembly for reverting the state's constitutional relationship with India to pre 1953 stage, after Abdullah expressed the apprehension that in case of state assembly adopting such a resolution, the government of India might dissolve the J&K assembly, leading to both Geelani and Lone also losing their membership of the state assembly along with all other MLAs.
In a statement issued at Srinagar, G M Shah has said that late Abdul Gani Lone and Sayeed Ali Shah Geelani, who were also elected as members of the State Legislative Assembly in 1977 elections, had approached him and had suggested that the time was ripe for Sheikh Abdullah to bring a resolution in the state assembly calling for restoration in pre 1953 status in the state and offering their support to such a resolution. He, on his part brought that to the notice of Sheikh Abdullah, who said that he was ready to introduce the resolution, but expressed the apprehension that the same would annoy the government of India, who would dissolve the assembly. Sheikh Abdullah is stated by Shah, to have asked if Geelani and Lone were ready to face the dissolution of House, he would be pleased to bring the resolution. When he brought to the notice of Geelani and Lone these apprehension, the both back tracked and said that the time was not opportune for introducing this kind of resolution in the House.
The statement by G M shah refuting the claim of Geelani brings to fore the changing stances and stands of Kashmiri leaders, including G M Shah himself about the constitutional relationship of J&K with the rest of the country, to suit their personal convince and expediency. G M Shah now himself is strong supporter and ardent advocate of reverting state's constitutional relationship with India to pre 1953 status.
It will be relevant here to recall that during the negotiations between Mohd. Afzal Baig as the representative of Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah and G Parthasarthy on behalf of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the issue of reverting the constitutional relationship to pre 1953 status was raised by the former and after protracted negotiations, it was decided that after taking over the reins of power in the state National Conference could review the Central laws extended to J&K after August 1953 and all the constitutional provisions altered since then. Accordingly, Sheikh Abdullah as Chief Minister of the state, had appointed a committee led by D D Thakur to review all the provisions and clauses in the J&K constitution and changes that were brought about after 1953 and recommend for any changes or reversions required, in the interest of the people of the state. However after examining in detail all the provisions of Indian constitution and laws extended to J&K, on the recommendation of the state legislature, after 1953, D D Thakur Committee came to the conclusion that all the clauses introduced are in the interest of the people of the state and there was no need of withdrawing the same. His recommendation in this behalf was accepted by the state government headed by Sheikh Abdullah and the move to review the central laws extended to the state, was dropped and the matter ended there. Now raking up the same demand by the National Conference or any other organization or individual is irrelevant and untenable. The constitutional status of J&K vis a vis country's constitution cannot be make hostage to the whims and political expediency of any party or an individual and cannot be a subject of review and discussion again and again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
