news details |
|
|
| Autonomy: Omar seeks what Sher-e-Kashmir conceded in 1975 | | |
Early Times Report
Srinagar, Jan 18: Before his deputy signed the 1975 accord, Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, during an interaction with the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi said: “Let us start from where I left in 1953. Gandhi replied, Sheikh Saheb, while I respect your sentiments, I must tell you that the clock cannot be turned back." This is where the `separatist’ in him died down. He was hopeful of a generous deal from the Prime Minister but she disappointed him. She was not ready to have two Prime Ministers in the country.
The autonomy demand of National Conference has to be seen in the light of this historic reality. Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah gave up his demand for self determination the day when he agreed to talk, and once on the negotiating table, he had to give up the autonomy demand as well. And, if Sher-e-Kashmir did not seek it, who are Dr Farooq and Omar Abdullah to demand it now? Could they afford to go where Sher-e-Kashmir feared to tread?
Shockingly, the most important clause (Autonomy clause) found a place in the `Agreed Conclusions’ of the accord at the bottom. Clause 6 of the accord reads: “No agreement was possible on the question of nomenclature of the Governor and the Chief Minister and the matter is therefore remitted to the Principals.”
This was blatant rejection of the autonomy demand. Sher-e-Kashmir accepted it. He also accepted the power of the Parliament to reject any law framed by the state legislature if it is repugnant to any law framed by the Parliament. (Art 254).
National Conference got what it sought. “It wanted power and got it even without having a single member in the legislative assembly. National Conference, (Plebiscite Front) ran the show then. Today somebody else is calling the shots.”
The NDA government rejected Dr Farooq’s Autonomy Resolution. He did not complain and accepted the decision like a `good boy’. Today National Conference is emboldened by Justice Sageer’s recommendations who according to Hasan Zaingere framed the report with a `preoccupied mind’. He said: “In the present form article 370 is atrophied of its resistance character. A hollow and highly eroded document it has been reduced to. In such a form suggesting abrogation or continuance of the Article does not carry much conviction. Suggesting reversion to 1953 position would have yielded the desired. Restored dignity to the state and confined Indians to the domain Maharaja has agreed to in the instrument of Accession. But skipping over that innocuous simple and make blurred recommendations reveal Sageer was with a preoccupied mind.”
What purpose does Article 370 serve any way? The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the state. The Auditor General of India, the Election Commission of India, the Parliament can frame laws for Jammu Kashmir, President’s rule can be extended to the state. What does it protect the state from?
And those who believe that restoration of autonomy can address the internal dimension of the dispute are mistaken. Restoration of autonomy, on the contrary, will further polarize the state. Nobody except National Conference seeks autonomy in the state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
