The narrations of the leaders of Jammu & Kashmir who attended the Prime Minister’s maiden All Party Meet (APM) post August 5, 2019 J&K constitutional moves on June 24 speak themselves of the fact that they talk from the position of bargaining for power and pelf and not from the position of strength for the purposes of restoration of the scrapped constitutional status of erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir state. Believe it or not J&K leaders during and after attending the All Party Meet in Delhi have dropped sufficient enough indications that they did not spoke to Prime Minister from the position of strength as is being perceived but they spoke from the position of bargaining only for pelf and power as usual. Though the invitees to the All Party Meet were expected to discuss politics for restoration of popular rule in Jammu & Kashmir but former Deputy Chief Muzaffar Hussain Beigh and former Chief Minister Gh Nabi Azad deviated away from the position of their political narratives to the legal position of the challengers of Cental Government’s August 5,2019 constitutional moves on erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir state. While the All party meeting called by the Prime Minister in Delhi had to focus on changes that were imposed in the spirit of central government’s August 5,2019 constitutional moves over erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir state, both Muzaffar Hussain Baig and as well as Gh Nabi Azad demanded only restoration of statehood through political process and advised the Prime Minister to leave the matter of restoration of article 370 and article 35 A for the supreme court of the country to decide keeping in view the fact that matter is sub judice in the top court.
Both Muzaffar Hussain Beig and Gh Nabi Azad trying to come on one page over restoration of statehood were responsible for both Amarnath land row agitation and as well as fall of PDP-BJP Government in the year 2008 as Deputy Chief Minister and Chief Minister of the state respectively. Had the land row agitation not led to polarisation Jammu & Kashmir on religious and regional lines in the year 2008, no political party would think of polarising Jammu & Kashmir along regional and religious lines and question of dividing the erstwhile state into two union territories won’t have arisen at all. So the spoilers of J&K politics if given a new role would further spoil the already spoiled politics in Jammu & Kashmir instead of restoring in it’s own form. Better for the central government to listen only leaders of unblemished political integrity and take decisions on the direct feedback from the people at the grass roots.
Given the legal contention of Muzaffar Hussain Baig that matters sub judice in Supreme Court can’t be discussed anywhere outside the court and as such Article 370 and Article 35 A can’t be discussed outside the court till the final verdict by the top court, this too is an undeniable reality that J&K parties have not to also discuss J&K Reorganisation Act 2019 for restoration of statehood being equally sub judice like Article 370 and Article 35 A as the said J&K reorganization act has also been challenged by most of the J&K mainstream Parties in the top court of the country. Question arises that has the Prime Minister’s all party meeting on J&K been held in violation of Supreme Court judgments or is Muzaffar Hussain Baig misinterpreting the Supreme Court observations and judgments for the purposes of his own political convenience? These are the questions which can be best replied only by jurists of repute. True it is that Muzaffar Hussain Beigh did not choose to comment on issue of Article 370 and Article 35 A by saying that matter is sub judice, but it is also an undisputed fact that none excepting J&K Apni Party President Syed Mohammad Altaf Bukhari sought early hearing on the issue keeping in view the fact that not even a single step has been taken by either the petitioners or the incumbent central government to get the matter pertaining to Article 370 and Article 35 A listed for early hearing in the Supreme Court. Interestingly Supreme in an observation on sub judice matters during hearing J&K internet curbs last year said ‘Sub Judice’ Rule shouldn’t stop Parliament from discussing J&K internet restrictions’ and this Supreme Court observation obviously leaves it for parliament to take a decision on holding a discussion on any public issue in the parliament. Though there is obviously more politics in Beig’s recent interpretations on sub judice matters than respect to the observations of the Supreme Court, but still then Peoples Conference Chairman Sajad Gani Lone without any rhyme and reasons says that leaders spoke well at the All Party meeting and made their people proud and as such Sajad will have to change his statement and says J&K leaders hurt and humiliated their people at the all party meeting as usual. In fact both Muzaffar Hussain Beig and Gh Nabi Azad trying to come on one page over restoration of statehood were previously responsible for both Amarnath land row agitation and as well as fall of PDP-BJP Government in the year 2008 as Deputy Chief Minister and Chief Minister of the state respectively. Had the land row agitation not led to polarisation Jammu & Kashmir on religious and regional lines in the year 2008, no political party would think of polarising Jammu & Kashmir along regional and religious lines and question of dividing the erstwhile state into two union territories won’t have arisen at all. So the spoilers of J&K politics if given a new role would further spoil the already spoiled politics in Jammu & Kashmir instead of restoring in it’s own form. Better for the central government to listen only leaders of unblemished political integrity and take decisions on the direct feedback from the people at the grass roots.
