Don't know which flag people of J&K will pick: Mehbooba Mufti warns Centre on Article 35A

[Zibago]

• Don't know which flag people of J&K will pick: Mehbooba Mufti warns Centre on Article 35A

TIMESOFINDIA.COM | Updated: Feb 25, 2019, 20:02 IST

TIMESOFINDIA.COM

HIGHLIGHTS

• The former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister said that Article 35A is a matter of right, not a privilege.
• The Supreme Court has listed the challenge to Article 35A of the Constitution for hearing from February 26 to 28

NEW DELHI: Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on

Article 35A
, Peoples Democratic Party president

Mehbooba Mufti
on Monday said that fiddling with it will have "disastrous consequences".


Addressing a press conference in Srinagar, the former Jammu and

Kashmir
chief minister said that Article 35A of the Constitution is a matter of right, not a privilege.


Adding that the Centre should not "play with fire," she said, "Don't fiddle with Article 35A, else you will see what you haven't seen since 1947. If it's attacked then I don't know which flag people of

Jammu and Kashmir
will be forced to pick up instead of the

tricolour
."


The Supreme Court has listed the challenge to Article 35A of the Constitution for hearing from February 26 to 28.


Earlier, National Conference (NC) vice-president

Omar Abdullah
said any fiddling with Jammu and Kashmir's

special status
would have serious and far-reaching consequences in the state.

"I am not threatening, it is my duty to warn you, the rest is your will. As a responsible citizen, it is my duty to tell Delhi that your thinking is not right," the NC leader said.


There has been growing indication that the Centre is considering to change its stand of aloofness from the bid to put an end to the provision which gives the Jammu & Kashmir government the rights to confer special privileges to those whom it defines as “permanent residents” of the state.


The entire Valley has been in a grip of panic since the last two days amidst speculation that the government may change its stand to seek an expeditious hearing in the matter
https://m.timesofindia.com/india/do...e-on-article-35a/amp_articleshow/68156407.cms

 

[kris]

Let's wait till the court gives it's verdict

 

[Fawad alam]

Only Allah will help them, Our government will not do any thing to save them as we are begging for peace right now.

 

[Rajput battalion]

My sixth sense tells me modi will lose the election

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Lol, look at the shit storm that was caused in Arunachal; how Government buildings were burned, soldiers had to be deployed and over a dozen people were killed - they were forced to cancel the move. Imagine what will happen in Kashmir.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/jam...-if-article-35a-touched-omar-abdullah-1999083

 

[lightoftruth]

Her vote bank is itself radical islamists and separatists, she is just licking their boots as always.

Supreme court will chicken out, its time govt bring an ordinance and remove 35A.

nothing will happen which we can't handle but it will create base for a long term solution.

 

[third eye]

Till the Babri Masjid remained upright the thought of it coming down worried people.

Now it’s history.

So should be the fate of 35A.

 

[waz]

Remove it and watch the Dogras and Pandits go crazy. No Kashmiri group wants the Valley and their lands flooded with folk from elsewhere.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Attempted demographic genocide, and the degree of support that this move has across India should make clear why so many Kashmiris don't want to be a part of India.

When Indian's can't even view the indigenous residents of a land as 'Indian', and would rather remove them or marginalize them, insurgency doesn't need any 'external support'.

 

[third eye]

Remove it and watch the Dogras and Pandits go crazy. No Kashmiri group wants the Valley and their lands flooded with folk from elsewhere.

Dogras & Pandits belonged to the K part of J&k too

Attempted demographic genocide, and the degree of support that this move has across India should make clear why so many Kashmiris don't want to be a part of India.

When Indian's can't even view the indigenous residents of a land as 'Indian', and would rather remove them or marginalize them, insurgency doesn't need any 'external support'.

How does ‘ India for Indians’ amount to demographic genocide ?

If people from J&K can settle , live ,work in any part of India why should it not be the other way round ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How does ‘ India for Indians’ amount to demographic genocide ?

If people from J&K can settle , live ,work in any part of India why should it not be the other way round ?

Because the people of J&K have not been given the right to decide whether they want to be a part of India, as committed to by the government of India under the UNSC Resolutions. The reverse works fine, because the States that the residents of J&K choose to settle, live and work are not occupied like J&K, and therefore the government of India, in allowing J&K residents to 'settle, live and work' in those states is reflective of the will of those people.

Another way to look at this is that Country A (India) may have immigration and residence policies that freely allow citizens/residents of Country B (J&K) to settle, live and work in country A. Country A can initiate these immigration policies without any quid pro quo from Country B, if it deems such immigration policies to be in its benefit. Country B, however, has no requirement to reciprocate those policies.

 

[thinkingcap81]

Because the people of J&K have not been given the right to decide whether they want to be a part of India, as committed to by the government of India under the UNSC Resolutions. The reverse works fine, because the States that the residents of J&K choose to settle, live and work are not occupied like J&K, and therefore the government of India, in allowing J&K residents to 'settle, live and work' in those states is reflective of the will of those people.

Another way to look at this is that Country A (India) may have immigration and residence policies that freely allow citizens/residents of Country B (J&K) to settle, live and work in country A. Country A can initiate these immigration policies without any quid pro quo from Country B, if it deems such immigration policies to be in its benefit. Country B, however, has no requirement to reciprocate those policies.

That is a good way of putting things - no wonder court cases drag on and on. However Kashmiri Muslims who make a living in other parts of India ask why are they being ill treated by the locals. If they do not wish to welcome Indians into what they consider to be their land then then should not ask for equal treatment either. That said targeting Kashmiri Muslims is condemnable and Modi should have made a statement earlier about this.

 

[ranjeet]

I don't think there is any danger to 35A at the moment, Our judicary will most probably delay the proceddings for the later half of the year.

 

[Meengla]

Those who are saying that 'India is for all Indians' must realize that, however coerced, the accession of J&K with India was based upon a promise by India giving special status to J&K as a pre-condition. Just because Indians have failed to assimilate Kashmiri Muslims doesn't mean that promise is not valid anymore. On the contrary, Kashmiris can claim that they haven't be given a fair-bargain by being part of India.

Also, don't forget there are 'Reservations' for American Indians (the Native ones--pre Europeans) where, even though they are 'Americans', they have many extra LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE rights and I bet they can dictate a lot of those rights including denying other 'Americans' some access.

India will ignite a firestorm if it revokes the special rights of Kashmiris. So far, despite all the animosities, I have thought Indians being far better than Israelis usurpers who have committed slow genocide by colonization. India would stoop to the level of the Zionists if India does this.

Having said all this--even a conservative commentator like Haroon Rashid was recently alluding to an LoC=IB solution based on the Musharraf-Manmohan dialogues. For Pakistanis, a dignified peace where Kashmiris have peace and prosperity and Pakistan's water rights are not endangered would be enough. That's the basis for the Musharraf-Manmohan formula: Give and Take. And they came pretty close to achieving that.

 

[American Pakistani]

That is a good way of putting things - no wonder court cases drag on and on. However Kashmiri Muslims who make a living in other parts of India ask why are they being ill treated by the locals. If they do not wish to welcome Indians into what they consider to be their land then then should not ask for equal treatment either. That said targeting Kashmiri Muslims is condemnable and Modi should have made a statement earlier about this.

The Kashmiris are working in India because they are under your illegal occupation and your 7 lakh Indian occupier terrorists are in IOK.