news details |
|
|
| But where is the signed copy of Delhi Agreement? | | NC Not Speaking The Truth | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, June 18: Speaking in a seminar in Srinagar, NC ideologue and Finance Minister Abdul Rahim Rather on Sunday a number of times referred to the so-called Delhi Agreement of 1952 to make his point that New Delhi consistently eroded autonomy that state had been granted under Article 370. He said many other debatable things. However, what was significant was his focus on the otherwise non-existent 1952 Delhi Agreement. He wanted to convey an impression that the Delhi Agreement had granted to the state the status of autonomous region in the Union under some definite constitutional guarantees.
What the Finance Minister said was factually incorrect. It is, however, true that Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the Jammu and Kashmir "Wazir-e-Azam" (Prime Minister) Sheikh Abdullah, and their aides got involved in negotiations between June 14 and July 24, 1952, to work out an arrangement that would regulate the Centre-State relations. It was the outcome of these lengthy and tortuous parleys that the Finance Minister and other NC leaders term as the "Delhi Agreement". They say "it was signed on July 24 by Nehru and the Sheikh." But this is one side of story. The other side of the story is more interesting and startling. It, in the words of Farooq Abdullah, is that "it was Parliament which (ratified the 'Delhi Agreement' and) promised autonomy" and that the "Bill (to this effect was) piloted (on July 24) by (the) then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru."
It needs to be underlined that it was in the 1990s that the "fugitive" Abdullah and his out-of-power Jammu and Delhi-based Kashmiri associates unleashed a no-holds-barred campaign to convince the Indian nation, the Parliament, the authorities in the South and North Blocks and the media that the root cause of the "Kashmiris' alienation" was the conspiracy hatched by New Delhi and its "power-hungry Kashmiri agents" to subvert the "Delhi Agreement" and bring J&K surreptitiously within the ambit of the Central laws and institutions. Ever since then, they have been using all the available forums and saying that there is but one way in which the separatists can be deflated, the Kashmir problem solved and the estranged Kashmiri Muslims won over and that is by redefining the Centre-State relations strictly in accordance with the lines indicated in the "Delhi Agreement."
In effect, they (and their report on the state autonomy and the June 26, 2000 Assembly resolution on it) have been vouching for a dispensation that not only snaps all the state's politico-constitutional ties with New Delhi and re-arm the Valley's ruling elite with extraordinary legislative, executive and judicial powers but also makes it mandatory for the Central Government to meet all the financial needs of the Kashmiri Muslims.
It would not be out of place to very briefly refer to the circumstances under which Nehru and Sheikh met during June-July, 1952, and what transpired between them. Such an exercise is a must to clear all the confusion and set the record straight. It needs to be noted that the whole exercise started on April 10, 1952, when Sheikh made some highly inflammatory speeches at Ranbirsingh Pura in Jammu, repeatedly questioned the accession of J&K to India and spewed venom on the Indian State. Highly infuriated, Nehru asked Sheikh to meet him and explain his position. Sheikh and Nehru did meet. It was during this and the subsequent meetings that Sheikh raised certain issues concerning the Centre-State relations.
As a matter of fact, Sheikh told Nehru that he and his party were for an autonomous J&K. He also urged the Indian Prime Minister to allow the J&K Constituent Assembly, which was set up in 1951 after wholesale rigging, to frame a constitution that could empower the state to exercise absolute control over all matters minus those relating to three subjects - defence, foreign affairs and communications.
To be more exact, Sheikh wanted Nehru to accept at least 10 of his demands. These were: (1) The "State Subjects", or persons domiciled in J&K, will be the citizens both of the State and India. (2) The "State Subjects" will have all the rights all over India but the "Non-State Subjects" will have no rights whatever in J&K. (3) The fundamental rights as contained in the Indian Constitution will not be conferred on the "State Subjects in their entirety." (4) The State will have the power to "define and regulate the rights and privileges of the permanent residents of J&K." (5) The State will be allowed to have its own flag. (6) The State will have the power to elect its own Head of State or Sadar-e-Riyasat, and the person so elected shall be answerable to it (read ruling party). (7) Article 356 shall not be applicable to J&K. In other words, the Centre will not intervene in the State in the case of internal disturbance. (8) Article 324 of the Indian Constitution will apply to the State only in case of elections to Parliament as well as the offices of the President and the Vice-President. (9) The Supreme Court of India will have limited jurisdiction over J&K. It will deal with only such disputes as were covered under Article 131 of the Union Constitution. (10) All the residuary powers will be the sole preserve of the State.
It needs to be noted that both Nehru and Sheikh had arrived at an agreed solution only as regards the aims and ideals and bare outlines of the new constitution. Numerous matters, which will form the basis of the Centre-State relations, had been left undetermined as proper subjects for further discussion and explanation. Some of these issues such as the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, jurisdiction of the Election Commission, emergency powers, fundamental rights and the question of finance were yet to be clinched.
It was on July 24, 1952, that Nehru informed the Lok Sabha as to what had transpired between him and Sheikh. And what he told to the Lok Sabha has been taken by the NC to mean as a solemn agreement between New Delhi and Srinagar, notwithstanding the fact that there is no Constitution (Application to J&K) Order issued by the President of India to this effect. The Lok Sabha statement of the Indian Prime Minister, which was rather ambiguous on several issues, has no moral, legal or constitutional significance. Ministers do make all kinds of statements in and outside the legislature and these could be described as agreements. The fact of the matter is that there exists no such agreement as the Delhi Agreement. It was mere statement made both by Nehru and Sheikh. Will the state government make public a copy of Delhi Agreement signed between Nehru and Sheikh? It will not because it doesn't exist at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
