Srinagar, Publish Date: Jul 29 2017
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Saturday termed as “politically incorrect” the statement of Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti in which she had warned the Centre against tinkering with Article 35 A of the constitution.
BJP is an ally in Mehbooba-led government in the state.
“The statement of Chief Minister of J&K on Art 35 A doesn’t depict true picture and is politically incorrect,” said Chief spokesperson of the BJP Sunil Sethi, in a statement, issued today.
Sethi said that Article 35A and 370 have “only led to disparity and inequalities in the state”.
“As Article 35 A saves state subject laws from applicability of concept of equality, it has lead to situation on unequal treatment of female state subjects and their children within state (sic).”
He claimed that the State Subject laws , which are protected by Art 35 A , are responsible for slow growth and progress of the state.
The state has become fiscally dependent on Grants of Central Govt in the absence of less investments and infrastructural projects in the state as outsiders are reluctant in investing their money in the state.
“Despite having more natural resources, the state is in financial mess because of self isolation,” he claimed.
Maintaining that the BJP will stand by their ‘Agenda of Alliance’ and wouldn’t seek alteration of the existing constitutional position, Sethi said “it is equally true that Art 35 A has created more harm to state than any other provision of law.”
He said the statement of Chief Minister was not “happily worded as bearing national flag in the state is an honour for all citizens and the party firmly believes that every person of state is first Indian and then state subject”.
He said the BJP stands politically for maintaining present constitutional position. “… but complete justice will happen to the people of state when all less propagating inequality would go (sic).”
Mehbooba has yesterday warned that if special rights and privileges to the people of Jammu and Kashmir are tinkered with, then there would be no one in the state to hold the tricolor.
