news details |
|
|
| Mir contradicts Azad, says statehood unachievable | | Veteran left in lurch? | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb 18: A shocking revelation made by the Jammu and Kashmir Congress Chief on Thursday seems to have set the eyeballs rolling. The statement made by G.A Mir about statehood goes ruthlessly in contrast to what the veteran Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad has been promulgating since August 5, 2019 decision.
“I don’t think statehood will be restored to J&K till BJP government is at the Centre, let alone Articles 370 and 35 A. I have keenly heard the statement of Amit Shah in the Parliament. He stated that have some patience, statehood to be restored at an appropriate time. What does that mean? That statement is totally ambiguous,” Mir told reporters in Srinagar on Thursday.
Mir’s statement has clearly vindicated that the wedge between the Congress party and Ghulam Nabi Azad is widening with each passing day and that it is going to be only murkier in the coming time.
On March 14, last year, Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad met the released NC president Dr Farooq Abdullah, at latter’s residence. Azad subtlety ducked the issue of Article 370, hinting that his party has accepted the abrogation of JK’s special status. Azad while talking to the media persons along with Dr Farooq at that time pitched for the restoration of Statehood for Jammu and Kashmir and preferred not to raise any issue pertaining to the abrogation of 370 and whether the order issued on August 5, last year should be rolled back.
Meanwhile, the reports about differences between Azad and the Congress party have been making rounds in the political woods for quite some time. On October 28, last year, while his party issued a formal statement against the new land laws declaring that the Congress party will fight for the core interests of Jammu and Kashmir, Azad spoke about the non payment of wages to doctors. Now with the Congress chief in Jammu and Kashmir contradicting Azad on such an important issue, it is likely that the Congress veteran too would come up with the counter remark. Would that remark be another hint of him being no longer a Congressman? Only time is going to answer such an intriguing question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
