Not drawing any lessons from the failures of his family’s three generations in protecting the special position granted to people of Jammu & Kashmir in the agreement of accession the National Conference Vice President and former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has shamelessly said “protecting article 35 A is a tacit acceptance that future of Jammu & Kashmir lies in the constitution of India” . Before making this highly provocative and irresponsible argument on separatists defending Article 35 A in the Supreme Court of the country Omar Abdullah may not have even imagined that he too can be questioned about the failures of his grandfather late Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and father Dr Farooq Abdullah in getting the Article 35 A ratified by both the house of parliament in the multiple accords they inked with many previous central government . Fact remains that Sheikh Abdullah did not bother to seek ratification of the Article 35 A in his historical accords with two former Prime Ministers Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru and Indira Gandhi who had brute majority in the parliament. Omar Abdullah should not also forget that his father Farooq Abdullah did not ask for ratification of the article 35 either in 1987 when he entered into an accord with Rajiv led Congress party just for return to power in the state and Farooq Abdullah again did not bother to ask for ratification of article 35 A when he choose to be an ally of BJP led NDA government at the centre under the leadership of Attal Bihari Vajpayee.
Keeping in view the failures of both Abdullahs’ and Muftis’ in protecting the constitutional guarantees extended to Jammu & Kashmir in the accession accord neither Omar Abdullah nor Mehbooba Mufti reserve the right to question the right to challenge article 35 A to those who are ideologically opposed to tinkering with such laws which can extend citizenship or property rights to the people of other states of the country. So Omar should bear in mind that challenging article 35 is tantamount to challenging the constitution of India bur not a tacit acceptance of the view that future of Jammu & Kashmir lies in the constitution of India.
In fact previous National Conference governments are responsible for allowing application many such central laws to Jammu & Kashmir which eroded the special position of the state granted to it in the accord of accession. After the application of many central laws by Abdullahs’ the PDP regimes headed by late Mufti Mohammad Sayeed and Mehbooba Mufti also allowed the extension of more central laws to dilute the state’s financial and political autonomy and Mufti also offered the power sharing opportunity to RSS back BJP in the Jammu & Kashmir government for the first time in the post 1947 political history of the state. During last three years of PDP-BJP coalition rule in the state the West Pakistan Refugees (WPRs) were offered identity certificates for the first time just to dilute the state subject law and SARFAESI (Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest) Act, 2002 was applied to Jammu & Kashmir with the intent of giving the nationalized banks the powers to grab land of locals for non-payment of any loan. So keeping in view the failures of both Abdullahs’ and Muftis’ in protecting the constitutional guarantees extended to Jammu & Kashmir in the accession accord neither Omar Abdullah nor Mehbooba Mufti reserve the right to question the right to challenge article 35 A to those who are ideologically opposed to tinkering with such laws which can extend citizenship or property rights to the people of other states of the country. So Omar should bear in mind that challenging article 35 is tantamount to challenging the constitution of India bur not a tacit acceptance of the view that future of Jammu & Kashmir lies in the constitution of India.
