news details |
|
|
| BJP delaying its response in SC on Article 35A | | Against the national mood | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Feb 28: The BJP, which sought and got the mandate from the people on the plank in 2014 that a vote for it would mean a vote for the empowerment of daughters of J&K, Hindu-Sikh refugees from Pakistan and equal status of all Indians in the state, has once again stands exposed. It has almost gone back on its commitment and is dancing to the tune of its new masters in the Kashmir Valley. It has lost its independence and it is doing what its ally, PDP, asks it to do.
The general impression in the state and elsewhere was that it was the PDP, which was defending to the hilt Article 35-A in the Supreme Court and that the BJP wanted it to be discussed by a larger constitutional bench. The BJP itself had created such an impression through the Attorney general. The Attorney General had on at least three occasions in 2017 said that "Article 35-A was a sensitive issue. It is an issue of constitutional import and the Government of India would want the Supreme Court to refer the issue to a larger constitutional bench so that a final decision on it could be taken".
However, the latest reports from New Delhi suggest that both the PDP and the BJP had been working in tandem as far as Article 35-A was concerned. One report from New Delhi in this regard the other day said: "On much pleading by the PDP, the Centre delayed its response in the Supreme Court on the matter. In October last year, the Centre said the hearing in the case should be adjourned as it may affect the work of its representative for holding talks in J&K, who had just been appointed".
What had the representative of the Government of India, Dineshwar Sharma, to do with Article 35-A? Was he to decide if this Article should go or should be retained? Had the Union Home Ministry given Sharma the mandate to decide the political and constitutional status of J&K vis-à-vis New Delhi? And, had the BJP Government at the Centre given Sharma the mandate to decide the fate of daughters of J&K, refugees from Pakistan and the rights of the Indians in the state?
And how could the BJP tell the Supreme Court what it said? It was in fact the negation of what the Government of India's top layer, Attorney General, himself had told the Apex court that it was a constitutional issue and it was for it to take a final view on Article 35-A. The fact of the matter is that the BJP has surrendered and bartered the rights of the daughters of J&K, the rights of refugees from Pakistan and the rights of Indians other than the permanent residents of the state.
Article 35A, which was incorporated in the Indian Constitution through an appendix in May 1954 bypassing the Parliament, empowers the J&K Government to grant or not to grant citizenship rights in the state to any individual or a group of individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
