news details |
|
|
| Para writes to LA speaker, expresses concern over absence of Martyrs' Day resolution from bulletin | | |  Early Times Report
JAMMU, Apr 6: Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leader and MLA Pulwama Waheed Para has written a letter to the Speaker of Legislative Assembly, Abdul Rahim Rather expressing concern over the absence of the Martyrs' Day resolution from the Bulletin dated March 26, 2025.
A letter which is in possession of Early Times states: "As we are nearing the conclusion of the first budget session of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly, I extend my sincere appreciation for your leadership in steering this process. This session marks a defining moment - the restoration of democratic representation in Jammu and Kashmir after a six-year vacuum during which our people endured political exclusion and marginalization. History will judge this period, and my earnest hope is that our actions today stand as a testament to justice and genuine representation."
"I write to express deep concern over the absence of the Martyrs' Day resolution from the Bulletin dated March 26, 2025. The significance of July 13 in our political history cannot be erased - especially at a time when our identity and collective history are at the risk of erasure. This day marked the political awakening of our people, paving the way for leaders like Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and our eventual transition from monarchy to democracy," the letter states.
"Recognizing July 13 as a public holiday, thus, is not only symbolic. It is a declaration that the shift from monarchy to democracy in Jammu and Kashmir came at a price - paid first by the martyrs of July 13, 1931. I understand that private member resolutions are subjected to a ballot process, and the exclusion of my Martyrs' Day (July 13) resolution may have a procedural explanation. However, as a matter of principle, democracy must not be held hostage to technicalities - especially when the majority of members in our House expressed their support for this resolution," it adds.
"Procedural rules cannot be weaponized to suppress the political significance of the historic event of July 13. I, therefore, urge you, Honorable Speaker, to exercise your discretionary powers and rectify this glaring omission just as the special status resolution was unexpectedly introduced in November 2024, despite its absence from the order of business," the letter states.
Para further writes: "I wish to bring several pressing procedural concerns to your kind attention, hoping for clarification from your esteemed office."
The letter has also raised questions over "Procedure regarding Repetition of Resolutions". "The Rules of Procedure, under the section "Repetition of Resolution," clearly state when a resolution has been moved, no resolution or amendment raising substantially the same question shall be moved within one year from the date of the moving of the earlier resolution," the letter states, adding, "Yet, the Bulletin of March 26, 2025, includes three resolutions on the restoration of statehood - a clear violation of this rule.
The Jammu and Kashmir Assembly already passed a resolution for the restoration of special status on November 6, 2024, less than a year ago. While that resolution fell short of the ideal demand for the full restoration of Article 370 and 35A, it was still a stronger forward than the cabinet's resolution on statehood alone."
"Given that special status is inherently tied to and inseparable from statehood, doesn't any new resolution exclusively focused on statehood qualify as a "substantially similar question" and therefore must not be admitted owing to the procedural rule stated above," it adds.
The letter reads that the redundant resolutions are taking precedence over more critical issues. "I also find it questionable that not one but three statehood resolutions - all nearly identical and technically ineligible until November 6, 2025 - have been included on the same day (April 7). If the rules explicitly state that no resolution raising substantially the same question shall be moved within one year, why are these multiple, redundant resolutions being admitted not just within the same year but in the same session, and on the very same day? Another resolution that calls for provision of quality healthcare across the state also defeats the purpose of introducing resolutions which is to build consensus in the House. It is unfortunate that such a fundamental commitment, expected of all members, requires a resolution at all. This raises a critical question: Is there an intentional attempt to inundate the system with hollow, redundant resolutions that divert time and attention from more pressing and substantive issues?"
The letter claims that there has been a dilution of the "Special Status Resolution." "More importantly, the introduction of these new statehood resolutions weakens and sidelines the previously passed special status resolution. By allowing multiple statehood resolutions, a misleading perception is created - suggesting that the demand for statehood is unanimous while effectively sidelining the Assembly's resolution on special status passed under your able supervision," it states, adding, "Could this be a conscious attempt to shift the goalpost, divert the discourse away from Article 370 and 35A, and establish a concerning precedent?"
"Resolutions admitted by the Honorable Speaker are subject to a balloting process. While this process is outlined in the Business Rules, it should only be necessary when the number of admitted resolutions exceeds the available slots. Since your esteemed office had allocated two days for tabling resolutions, a maximum of fourteen resolutions - seven per day - could have been introduced. However, the issue arises when resolutions that are ineligible for admission (such as the three statehood resolutions), or resolutions that are too self-evident and indisputable for debate (like the healthcare resolution), or those with specific fiscal implications (like the construction of a tunnel) are admitted. Had resolutions been admitted based on merit, admitting only those issues that genuinely require consensus-building in the House, could the ballot have been avoided altogether? Or at least, would the outcome of ballot not be significantly different from what we see now?" the letter reads.
"I write out of a deep commitment to upholding legislative integrity and democratic representation. The exclusion of the Martyrs' Day resolution and these procedural concerns need to be meticulously explained and thoroughly understood so that our faith in the legitimacy of these processes remains unimpeachable," it states.
"Lastly, in light of the above discussion, I earnestly appeal to you, Honorable Speaker, to kindly consider the following:
Reinstating the Martyrs' Day (July 13) resolution in the legislative business. Upholding procedural rules to prevent repetition and redundancy in resolutions, ensuring that legislative priorities remain focused. Providing guidance on priority-setting during the admission and balloting of resolutions," the letter reads.
"At a time when the people of J&K seek justice and substantive representation, we look to your esteemed leadership for guidance. Your wisdom and commitment to democratic values are vital in preventing procedural oversights from eroding public trust. I am hopeful that your judicious attention to these matters will strengthen the integrity and effectiveness of our legislative institutions for years to come. I look forward to your response & timely intervention," Para writes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
