news details |
|
|
| Abdul Rahim wrong, NC itself a party to the erosion of internal autonomy | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 22: Finance Minister and an ideologue of the National Conference Abdul Rahim Rather accused New Delhi of eroding the state's internal autonomy using "unconstitutional" means. Whom he is trying to fool? He cannot befool the people for all the times to come. New Delhi has not done anything "unconstitutional." Whatever New Delhi has done it has done with the "concurrence" of the state government or on the request of the state government.
It needs to be noted that between 1953 and 1990, 260 out of a total of 395 Central laws were extended to the state. These relate to matters concerning the Executive, Legislature and High Courts of States of the Union. During the same period, 94 out of a total of 97 Entries in the Union List were applied to the state. Some of these Entries like the "Entries 8, 9 and 34 relate to CBI jurisdiction, preventive detention connected with defence matters, and courts of wards for the estates of rulers of Indian States, respectively." Between 1953 and 1990, 21 out of a total of 47 Entries in the Concurrent List were applied to the state. Bulk of these Entries deal with matters of "social legislation, charitable institutions, relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons, transfer of property" and so on. Again, between 1953 and 1992, 5 out of a total of 12 Schedules were applied to the state. These relate to "control of the Scheduled area and Scheduled Tribes"; "administration of tribal areas"; "disqualification on grounds of defection except in so far it relates to members of Parliament"; "powers of Panchayats (new provision of the Indian Constitution vide Seventy-Third Amendment Act, 1992); and "power and responsibilities of municipalities (new provision of the Indian Constitution vide Seventy-Fourth Amendment Act, 1992)."
Again, between 1979 and 1985, no less than 16 Central laws were extended to the state. These include Inter-state Migrant Workmen Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service Act, 1979 (30 of 1979); Hotel Receipt Tax Act, 1980; Union Duties of Excise (Electricity) Distribution Act, 1980; Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1981; Civil Workers and Cinema Theatres Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981; Company Secretaries Act, 1981; Essential Service Maintenance Act, 1981 (41 of 1981); Export-Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981) Enforced by S.O 919 (E) dated 29-12-1981, w.e.f 1-1-1982; Special Bearer Bonds Immunities and Exemptions Act, 1981; National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981; Sugar Cess Act, 1982; Sugar Development Act, 1982; Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preventive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1983; Dangerous Machine Regulation Act, 1983 (35 of 1983; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985; and POTA.
In between, the nomenclatures of the head of the state and head of the government were changed in 1965. The nomenclatures of Sadar-e-Riyasat and Wazir-e-Azam were changed and the nomenclatures of Governor and Chief Minister were adopted, thus bring the state at par with other states of the Union were concerned as far as the offices of Governor and Chief Minister were concerned. The obnoxious Permit system was also abolished and the people of the state were given the freedom to visit any part the country they wished without obtaining permit or visa from any authority. This abolition also gave full freedom to the rest of the country to visit any part of the state without obtaining permit or visa from any authority. This was one of the major initiatives taken by the Union Government to integrate the state into India. Besides, the state was also brought under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Election Commission and Comptroller and Auditor-General.
The credit for the extension of the Central laws and institutions to Jammu and Kashmir goes both to the Congress and the National Conference, notwithstanding their numerous acts of omission and commission. The National Conference's Autonomy Committee report candidly acknowledges that all the Central laws were extended with the consent of the state government. The report on page 63 in this regard says: "Successive State Governments had in the past accorded their 'concurrence' for various reasons and under various political compulsions…" The reports nowhere refers to these so-called "various reasons" and "political compulsions."
Let's accept the National Conference's untenable argument just for the sake of argument that New Delhi introduced various Central laws in the state under the Congress' regimes using "unconstitutional methods. But what will it say about those 15-16 Central laws, including POTA, which were extended to the state when it itself was ruling the state? Again, what would it say about the two autonomy committee reports, which were prepared by Deputy Chief Minister D. D. Thakur and G.M Shah and Ghulam Nabi Kochak? (To be continued). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
