Amid additional deployments of paramilitaries and heavy stocking of essentials and medicines by the government both the central government and as wells as Governor’s administration are continuing their ambiguity over their stand on article 35 A the historical legislation governing the property rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir coming up for hearing in the supreme court. With Jammu & Kashmir Advocate General D C Raina seeking time to come clear on the state government’s position on article 35 A before it’s hearing in the supreme court this week and media reports hinted at possibility of central government reviewing its position on article 35 A the ambiguity shown by both the central government and as well as governor’s administration over their stands during the upcoming hearing on the case in the supreme court has generated an atmosphere of uncertainty and chaos in Kashmir valley and parts of Chenab Valley and Pir Panjal . Keeping in view the rising public concerns of the majority of the populations in Jammu & Kashmir over the protection of article 35 A both the central and the governor’s administration should have come clear on their stands over the case. Governor Satya Pal Malik saying that he won’t go against the interests of the Kashmiri people amid a remark from advocate general that he is yet to know about the government’s stand during hearing on article 35 A in the supreme court from the law department has compound the confusion instead of clearing the confusion persisting among the majority of the populations in the state.
Since the last hearing on Article 35 A was held in the supreme court during the reign of PDP-BJP coalition government and the state’s law departments had that time clarified government’s stand on the case days before the scheduled date of hearing, it has become imperative for both the central government and as well as governor’s administration clarify their stands on article 35 A before the hearing on the case in supreme court to end the ambiguity as the state is under presidential rule and no popular government is in place.
Allowing the ambiguity to persist till the date of hearing in the supreme court shows that the intents of both the central government’s and governor’s administration on the protection of article 35 A are doubtful keeping in view the present political atmosphere in Jammu and Kashmir and rest of the country ahead of ensuing Lok Sabha elections. Since the last hearing on Article 35 A was held in the supreme court during the reign of PDP-BJP coalition government and the state’s law departments had that time clarified government’s stand on the case days before the scheduled date of hearing, it has become imperative for both the central government and as well as governor’s administration clarify their stands on article 35 A before the hearing on the case in supreme court to end the ambiguity as the state is under presidential rule and no popular government is in place.
