DOCSLIB.ORG

Political Economy of Discontent in Jammu and Kashmir 1953-1975

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Political Economy of Discontent in Jammu and Kashmir 1953-1975 © 2020 IJRAR March 2020, Volume 7, Issue 1 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138) Political Economy of Discontent in Jammu and Kashmir 1953-1975 BASIT MASOOD SUHRAWARDY Research Scholar (Ph.D.) Department of Political Science Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh Abstract: The economic aspect of Jammu and Kashmir crises has more or less been overlooked. Therefore, the paper is an attempt to highlight the economic discontent in Jammu and Kashmir from 1953-75. Hence, against this backdrop, the paper evaluates the empirical data on level of economic development of the state during this period. Keywords: Accession, Autonomy, Discontent, Economic underdevelopment, Political Economy. The accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India is different from accession of other States as it took place when the State was in imminent danger of being overrun by tribal raiders acting under the instigation of the Government of Pakistan. It was a limited accession restricted only to three subjects: defence, foreign affairs and communications.1 The restriction of Centre‘s (Indian federal Government at the Centre) authority only to defence, foreign affairs and communication was formalised by virtue of Instrument of Accession, signed with Maharaja Hari Singh, the last ruler of Jammu and Kashmir on 27 October 1947.2 Nehru in a letter to sheikh Abdullah on 18 May 1949 committed that ―Jammu and Kashmir State now stands acceded to Indian union in respect of three subjects, namely, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications.3 In fact, the internal autonomy was one of the fundamental reasons that prompted Sheikh Abdullah-led National Conference to accede to India. As Sheikh testifies it, himself, “As is well known to you, the present relationship of the State is based on the document of Instrument of Accession. We, the people of Kashmir, regard the promises and assurances of the representatives of the Government of India, such as Lord Mountbatten and Sardar Patel, as surety for the assistance rendered by us in securing the signatures of the Maharaja of Kashmir on the Instrument of Accession, which made it clear, that the internal autonomy and sovereignty of the Acceding States shall be maintained except in regard to three subjects which will be under the Central Government. I mention here in this connection, the clear assurances given by Sardar Patel to Indian States on July 5, 1947. He observed: We do not want anything more from them than accession in these three subjects, therein lies the good of the entire country. We respect their independence in other matters.4 The political logic of autonomy and Article 370 of the Indian Constitution was necessitated by the need to bring about socioeconomic transformations.5 The National conference assumed administration of the state under the prime ministership of sheikh Abdullah on 5th of March, 1948. Having led the struggle against economic marginalization of Kashmiris under the Dogras, after assuming administration, the national Conference government was too eager to translate its Naya Kashmir Manifesto adopted in 1944 into a reality.6 After the Centre brought about undemocratic dismissal of sheikh Abdullah from the Premiership in 19537, it (the centre) installed pro-integrationist successive state governments till 1975. During this period(1953-975),the centre followed a policy; what Sumantra Bose IJRAR2001507 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 638 © 2020 IJRAR March 2020, Volume 7, Issue 1 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138) terms as contractual relationship8, between the successive state governments and the government of India, whereby in return for facilitating Jammu and Kashmir‘s integration with India, these centrally sponsored state governments were provided with free liberal aid to manufacture consent in favour of India.9 Thus a Subsidised economy was created, more to manufacture political consent than to restructure economy, which Wajahat Habibullah, terms as ‘buying the Kashmiri back’.10 “Between 1950 and 1970 nearly 90% of the state’s Five Year Plans were funded by the Centre.”11 Thus, consequently, on the one hand Centre persisted with the policy of economic integration that led to resentment. For example, the abolition of customs barrier on April 13, 1954 economically integrated J and K to India on the same footing as those of other.12 It was a most significant move since it deprived Kashmir of considerable portion of her income derived from duties and excise imposed on trade with British India for years.13 The reaction to this move came when, in March 1955, Mirza Afzal Beg, the leader of the small opposition in the assembly, attacked it for frustrating the state‘s goal of self-reliance.14Similarly, Indian Comptroller and Auditor-General, despite protests by Sheikh Abdullah (from his prison cell) and by the Security Council of the United Nations, duly came into effect.15 On the other hand the policy of Subsidised economy created two problems (a) One, this policy failed to give the state an impetus to mobilize its own resources for economic growth. (b)The benefits of economic development remained confined to a thin, top layer of society and did not trickle down to the masses, thus created a gulf between two classes16; those who could reap the benefits of development programmes; the small proprietary class‘ and those who were deprived of or remained untouched; the vast segments of masses’. This left vast segments of the population-urban and rural, educated and illiterate, men and women-engaged in fierce struggle for social and economic survival.17 Since the state governments were installed by the centre, the discontented masses held the centre responsible for their ills.18 The masses found expression in the Plebiscite Front, the only representative organisation of the people in the valley of Kashmir during 1955-1975.19 During the trial in the Kashmir Conspiracy case, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in a written statement of 8 August 1960 before the court of Special Magistrate, Kud Sub-Jail,… Kashmiris have been reduced to the position of being worse than that of a ‘colonial State’.20 It was against such a backdrop that the Plebiscite Front convened a special convention in first week of July 1965, at its headquarters at Mujahid Manzil Srinagar. The Resolution number four, one of most significant resolutions highlighting the economic grievances of the Kashmiri people, viewed with great concern the deteriorating economic conditions of the people who felt crushed under the burden of soaring prices, increasing unemployment and bleak chances of rescue from the economic bankruptcy which had set in. The resolution provided a short review of the economic crises of the state, and stated that there has been no basic economic reconstruction and no advancement in the economic growth of the people’ (emphasis added). It further stated that doles and subsidies cannot bring prosperity to the people. Therefore the convention resolved to urgently place the resolution before the general public and the authorities.21 Subsequently, the Indira - Abdullah of 1975 was essentially reaffirmation of the status quo, which Sheikh Abdullah accepted, notwithstanding his insistence at the outset of the negotiations on return to pre-1953 relationship between the state and Union. But the new generation of young educated Kashmiris brought up in Sheikh Abdullah‘s school of rebellion, from 1953 to 1975 were not ready to accept the exacted status quo.22 IJRAR2001507 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 639 © 2020 IJRAR March 2020, Volume 7, Issue 1 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138) Below discussion is an attempt to empirically analyse economic life of Jammu and Kashmir within a time frame of these 22 years. Such an exercise will highlight the issues of lack of development. Table 1 presents a comparative view of growth of different states in terms of State Domestic Production (SDP). Table 1 clearly shows that in terms of economic growth among 18 major states, Jammu and Kashmir ranked 10th in 1960-61 and 15 in 1975- 76.This reveals Jammu and Kashmir’s dismal economic performance during these years. Furthermore, the downward trend is indicative of the fact that the subsided economy was detrimental to the economic growth of the state. Table 1 Per capita income of Indian States at current prices (Rs) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 S.No. State 1960-61 Rank 1964-65 1969-70 1975-76 Rank 1 Andhra Pradesh 314 8 438 544 897 11 2 Assam 349 6 441 586 848 13 3 Bihar 216 16 299 402 669 18 4 Gujarat 380 4 523 740 1236 4 5 Haryana 350 5 504 902 1514 2 6 Himachal Pradesh - - - 724 1165 5 7 Jammu & Kashmir 287 10 341 503 825 15 8 Karnataka 292 9 420 571 1038 7 9 Kerala 278 11 393 643 1000 8 10 Madhya Pradesh 274 12 373 495 790 16 11 Maharashtra 419 1 526 736 1455 3 12 Manipur - - - 542 904 10 13 Orissa 226 15 347 545 834 14 14 Punjab 385 3 575 1002 1688 1 15 Rajasthan 271 13 356 478 873 12 16 Tamil Nadu 344 7 434 591 997 9 17 Uttar Pradesh 244 14 374 485 727 17 18 West Bengal 386 2 498 728 1100 6 All India 307 422 590 981 Sources: For 1960-61,1975-76;Mahesh Chand and V.K. Puri, Regional Planning in India, Original source; For 1975-76 Report of the Seventh Finance Commission,178,Annexure VII.3,p.308,For 1960-61, Om Prakash Mathur, “The Problem of Inter-Regional Disparities”, Indian Journal of Regional Science, Vol. V, No. 1,1973,Table I,p.89. In order to get a better picture of economic development of the Jammu and Kashmir we need to look at the sectoral distribution of the economic activity during these years.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • REPORT of the Indian States Enquiry Committee (Financial) "1932'
    EAST INDIA (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS) REPORT of the Indian States Enquiry Committee (Financial) "1932' Presented by the Secretary of State for India to Parliament by Command of His Majesty July, 1932 LONDON PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE To be purchased directly from H^M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses Adastral House, Kingsway, London, W.C.2; 120, George Street, Edinburgh York Street, Manchester; i, St. Andrew’s Crescent, Cardiff 15, Donegall Square West, Belfast or through any Bookseller 1932 Price od. Net Cmd. 4103 A House of Commons Parliamentary Papers Online. Copyright (c) 2006 ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. The total cost of the Indian States Enquiry Committee (Financial) 4 is estimated to be a,bout £10,605. The cost of printing and publishing this Report is estimated by H.M. Stationery Ofdce at £310^ House of Commons Parliamentary Papers Online. Copyright (c) 2006 ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page,. Paras. of Members .. viii Xietter to Frim& Mmister 1-2 Chapter I.—^Introduction 3-7 1-13 Field of Enquiry .. ,. 3 1-2 States visited, or with whom discussions were held .. 3-4 3-4 Memoranda received from States.. .. .. .. 4 5-6 Method of work adopted by Conunittee .. .. 5 7-9 Official publications utilised .. .. .. .. 5. 10 Questions raised outside Terms of Reference .. .. 6 11 Division of subject-matter of Report .., ,.. .. ^7 12 Statistic^information 7 13 Chapter n.—^Historical. Survey 8-15 14-32 The d3masties of India .. .. .. .. .. 8-9 14-20 Decay of the Moghul Empire and rise of the Mahrattas.
    [Show full text]
  • Accession of the States Had Been the Big Issue After the Division of Subcontinent Into Two Major Countries
    Journal of Historical Studies Vol. II, No.I (January-June 2016) An Historical Overview of the Accession of Princely States Attiya Khanam The Women University, Multan Abstract The paper presents the historical overview of the accession of princely states. The British ruled India with two administrative systems, the princely states and British provinces. The states were ruled by native rulers who had entered into treaty with the British government. With the fall of Paramountacy, the states had to confirm their accession to one Constituent Assembly or the other. The paper discusses the position of states at the time of independence and unfolds the British, congress and Muslim league policies towards the accession of princely states. It further discloses the evil plans and scheming of British to save the congress interests as it considered the proposal of the cabinet Mission 1946 as ‘balkanisation of India’. Congress was deadly against the proposal of allowing states to opt for independence following the lapse of paramountancy. Congress adopted very aggressive policy and threatened the states for accession. Muslim league did not interfere with the internal affair of any sate and remained neutral. It respected the right of the states to decide their own future by their own choice. The paper documents the policies of these main parties and unveils the hidden motives of main actors. It also provides the historical and political details of those states acceded to Pakistan. 84 Attiya Khanam Key Words: Transfer of Power 1947, Accession of State to Pakistan, Partition of India, Princely States Introduction Accession of the states had been the big issue after the division of subcontinent into two major countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Alive and Kicking: the Kashmir Dispute Forty Years Later James D
    Penn State International Law Review Volume 9 Article 5 Number 1 Dickinson Journal of International Law 1991 Alive and Kicking: The Kashmir Dispute Forty Years Later James D. Howley Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Howley, James D. (1991) "Alive and Kicking: The Kashmir Dispute Forty Years Later," Penn State International Law Review: Vol. 9: No. 1, Article 5. Available at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr/vol9/iss1/5 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Penn State International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Alive and Kicking: The Kashmir Dispute Forty Years Later I. Introduction The Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan involves a struggle between two powers for the possession of a tract of territory which each wants for its own valid reasons. The stakes are of major economic, political and strategic significance to Pakistan, while to India, Kashmir has become a symbol of national prestige and inter- national justice.1 Charges of aggression and violations of interna- tional law have been asserted by both parties. In considering a solu- tion to the Kashmir dispute, it is necessary to look beyond the blatant facts and see the elements that gave rise to the dispute and the circumstances under which it occurred. A purely legalistic approach never solves large political problems. With this in mind, this Comment begins with an examina- tion of the roots of the conflict: Kashmir's economy, geography, predominantly Moslem population and Hindu ruler.
    [Show full text]
  • British Policy Towards the Indian States, 1905-1959
    BRITISH POLICY TOWARDS THE INDIAN STATES, 1905-1959 by STEPHEN RICHARD ASHTON Thesis submitted from The School of Oriental and African Studies to the University of London for the degree of doctor of philosophy, 1977• ProQuest Number: 11010305 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 11010305 Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 ABSTRACT Prior to 194-7 approximately one-third of the Indian sub-continent was broken up into 655 Indian States which were ruled by princes of varying rank. In the process of consolidating their empire in India the British had, during the first half of the nineteenth century, deprived the princes of the power to conduct external relations with each other or with foreign powers. Internally the princes were theoretically independent but their sovereignty in this respect was in practice restricted by the paramountcy of the Imperial power. Many of the princes resented the manner in which the British used this paramountcy to justify intervening in their domestic affairs. During the nineteenth century the British had maintained the princes basically as an administrative convenience and as a source of revenue.
    [Show full text]
  • N GOVT- of Mnj^^Fsg
    MS. I* -n * ^j GOVERNMENT OF INDIA \ WHITE PAPER ON INDIAN STATES >»rp^ONAL LIBRARY ©P „„»—» GOVT- OF mnj^^fSg Price Be. 1 -4*. 13 *r 2s. 65 21 PERSONAL LIBRARY OP PROFESSOR SHER SINGH "SHHH TABLE OF CONTENTS £age FOREWORD PART I.—INDIAN STATES UNDER PARAMOUNTCY OF THE BRITISH CROWN General Survey « 3 Historical Survey 4 Geographical Survey . • . 4 Political Diversity of States. 5 Three Categories of States 5 Chamber of Princes. 6 Treaties, Engagements and Sanads ....... 6 Relationship between Paramount Power and Indian States. 6 PART n.—THE STATES UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, AND SUBSEQUENT PLANS FOR INDIA'S CONSTITU­ TIONAL ADVANCEMENT. Federal Scheme 7 Cripps Plan 8 Simla Conference of 1945 9 Cabinet Mission's Plan 9 His Majesty's Government's Statement of June 3, 1947. 11 PART ni.—ACCESSION OF THE STATES TO THE DOMINION OF INDIA. Lapse of Paramountcy ......... 12 States Department ......... 12 Necessity of a Common Centre '......• 13 Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's Statement of July 5, 1947. 13 special Meeting of Princes on July 25, 1947 .' 1^ Successful conclusion of Negotiations ...... 14 Instrument of Accession ......•• 14 standstill Agreements . • m m • 15 significance of Constitutional Relationship between the Indian Dominion and the States 15 PART IV.—INTEGRATION AND Problem of Smaller States 15 Popular Movements in States 16 Merger of Orissa and Chattisgarh States • 16 Hon'ble States Minister's Statement on Policy of Integration and Democratisation ........••• 17 Merger of Deccan States. .....••• 18 Merger of Gujarat States ......•• 18 Merger of other small States .••••••• 19 Consolidation of East Punjab Hill States into a Centrally Administered Unit 19 Merger of Kutch 19 Formation of Unions 20 T" :f ed State of Kathiawar (Saurashtra) .
    [Show full text]
  • Treaty of Accession Kashmir
    Treaty Of Accession Kashmir When Chalmers yap his monotheism quadrated not ably enough, is Welby seismologic? Entopic and bruised Agustin gurgles her poundals reaving while Ford colligate some Hottentot singularly. If lattermost or scenographical Lorenzo usually despumated his skiff bypass waitingly or ionize iambically and ruinously, how intercolonial is Rocky? Q&A India's change to disputed Kashmir's status ABC News. Why do Pakistan want Kashmir? Pakistan violated the treaty but after thaw was signed when swift began to. Under the 1947 partition plan Kashmir was that to accede to either India or. Assembly voted to ratify the slave of Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India. Origins of Conflict Stand With Kashmir. Such story the 1972 Shimla Agreement told the Lahore Declaration. India set a withdraw Kashmir's special status and split it steep two. Durham E-Theses CORE. Because pork could not readily raise your sum the East India Company allowed the Dogra ruler Gulab Singh to acquire Kashmir from the Sikh kingdom in exchange for making alternate payment of 750000 rupees to view Company. In Kashmir25 India contended that Kashmir's accession was legally binding. The Instrument of Accession is simple legal document executed by Maharaja Hari Singh ruler because the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir on 26 October 1947 By executing this document under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act 1947 Maharaja Hari Singh agreed to accede to the Dominion of India. Offers made to Pakistan in a telegram under the standstill agreement included communications. India believes that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir is final and any.
    [Show full text]
  • Third Party Mediation Over Kashmir: a Modest Proposal
    Third Party Mediation over Kashmir: A Modest Proposal ANTHONY WANIS ST. JOHN An enduring rivalry coupled with an internal insurgency define the current state of the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. The circumstances are now in place to give a third party the opportunity to act as mediator in the long-standing conflict, as well as in the dispute between India and the Kashmiri insurgency. International mediation theory is not sufficient to apply to this conflict. Emerging and established theories of mediation regarding both international and internal aspects of the conflict are considered. The progress and status of the dispute, as well as the dynamics of the triadic relationship between India and Pakistan and the US are examined and reveal that the interests inherent in the US-India and the US-Pakistan relationships are converging. Strategic and economic interests which facilitate third party intervention are each considered in turn. The role of the US as mediating party is then brought into focus against a background of geo-political change and bilateral stalemate. The issue of whether mediator bias will affect the outcome of mediation is considered in a theoretical analysis. The author concludes that perceptions of bias will not affect the outcome negatively, and that the US can encourage constructiveperceptions of bmby both India and Pakistan in order to maximize its leverage over the parties and encourage a political settlement. The possibility of resolution of the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan is now being greatly enhanced by the existence of one remaining, engaged superpower and should be taken advantage of.
    [Show full text]
  • Lord Mountbatten's Role in Political Intergration Of
    RJP!VoL12,No.1, March2015, ISSN:0976-3635 17 LORD MOTINTBATTEN'S ROLE IN POLITICAL INTERGRAUON OF IITDIA 3 Dr. Sushila Shaktawat* Indian National Congress declared its objective the political integration of these territories in to India. which the Indian Govt. pursued up to next 20 years Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel andV.P. Menon convincedthe king,s ofthe everyprincely states and transform their administrations unless and until 1956, there was difference between the British Indian territories and princely states Govt. of India with diplomatic and Military Combination acquire the legal control over it till there were integrated into India. this process successfully integrated most of the princely states into to India but successfully integrated most of the princely states into to India but few states remain e.g. Manipur and Tripura and Kashmir when then the active here ditary rules movements started British expansion in India became successful because of two approaches. The policy of annexation by which the British forcibly absorb the krdian princely states through which they constituted this empire and the policy ofindirectrules. ln l92l British create chamber of princes as advisory body of integrate the princely states more nearby British and in 1936 affords where made by creating direct relations between the Govt. of India and princely state. Govt. of IndiaAct 1935 was formed so the British India and princely states to unite under a Federal Government. This scheme got success but stopped in tAssociate Professor (History), fai Narayan fyas University, Jodhpur(Raj.) 18 RJPBVol.12,No.1, March20tS, ISSN:097G3635 1939 because of Second World War upto 1940 the relationship between princely states and crown regulated with treaties and principle of paramountcy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study on Contributions of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in Consolidating Historical Elements in New India After Independence” Tabasum Bhanu
    www.ijcrt.org © 2016 IJCRT | Volume 4, Issue 4 October 2016 | ISSN: 2320-2882 “A study on Contributions of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in consolidating Historical Elements in New India after independence” Tabasum Bhanu Abstract The dawn on India’s freedom was full of political and socio-economic complexities. The leaders of the country found themselves in an atmosphere surcharged with multifarious and divergent criticalities. These had, if not solved quickly, would have led to further complications. Vexed with various problems of varied dimensions, the leaders had to find out ways and means to face the reality of the situation and arrive at a solution beneficial to the country. The problems of minorities, though at the first instance seemed of minor nature, came out to be crucial. And, Sardar Patel with his extraordinary caliber wisdom and capacity, could arrive at an acceptable solution to restore confidence in them; thereby leading them towards the common goal of national solidarity. Simultaneously, a more crucial problem arose due to the British policy towards more than five hundred and odd Princely States, their exact position after the departure of the British was not clearly defined. The immediate fallout of the freedom of the country was the creation of two distinct nations, namely, India and Pakistan. The native princes were allowed to join either of the two proposed countries according to their choice. A country, invested with such a large number of Free states, could not have dreamt of political consolidation in such an environment. It was quite likely that those princes could have formed a third force and contributed towards its disintegration rather than its further consolidation.
    [Show full text]
  • Kashmir: Background, Recent Developments, and U.S
    Kashmir: Background, Recent Developments, and U.S. Policy Updated January 13, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45877 SUMMARY R45877 Kashmir: Background, Recent Developments, January 13, 2020 and U.S. Policy K. Alan Kronstadt In early August 2019, the Indian government announced that it would make major changes to the Specialist in South Asian legal status of its Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) state, specifically by repealing Affairs Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and Section 35A of its Annex, which provided the state “special” autonomous status, and by bifurcating the state into two successor “Union Territories” with more limited indigenous administrative powers. The changes were implemented on November 1, 2019. The former princely region’s sovereignty has been unsettled since 1947 and its territory is divided by a military “Line of Control,” with Pakistan controlling about one-third and disputing India’s claim over most of the remainder as J&K (China also claims some of the region’s land). The United Nations considers J&K to be disputed territory, but New Delhi, the status quo party, calls the recent legal changes an internal matter, and it generally opposes third-party involvement in the Kashmir issue. U.S. policy seeks to prevent conflict between India and Pakistan from escalating, and the U.S. Congress supports a U.S.-India strategic partnership that has been underway since 2005, while also maintaining attention on issues of human rights and religious freedom. India’s August actions sparked international controversy as “unilateral” changes of J&K’s status that could harm regional stability, eliciting U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1607 Hours MR. CHAIRMAN : Before the House Takes up This Discussion, I Have an Announcement to Make
    Title: Discussion regarding resolution passed by Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly for Autonomy.(Not concluded) 1607 hours MR. CHAIRMAN : Before the House takes up this discussion, I have an announcement to make. gÉÉÉÉÒ Ò +ÉÉxxÉÉÆiÆiÉÉ MMÉÉÆMÆMÉÉÉÉ®ÉÉààÉÉ MMÉÉÉÉÒiÒiÉÉä ä (®iixxÉÉÉÉÉÉÊMÊMÉÉ®ÉÉÒ)Ò :: ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉéxÉä <弃 ÉÊ´ÉÂÉ廃 {É® ÉÊxɪÉàÉ 184 BÉEä +ÉÆiÉMÉÇiÉ xÉÉäÉÊ]弃 ÉÊnªÉÉ cè* àÉä®ä xÉÉäÉÊ]弃 BÉEÉ BÉDªÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ, àÉé VÉÉxÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ? º ÉÉ£ ÉÉÉÉ{{ÉÉÉÉÊiÊiÉÉ ààÉÉcÉÉänä ªªÉÉ (gÉÉÉÉÒàÒàÉÉiiÉÉÉÉÒ Ò ààÉÉÉÉOOÉÉæ]æ +ÉÉÉÉã´´ÉÉÉÉ) : +É£ÉÉÒ iÉÉä °ôãÉ 193 BÉEä +ÉÆiÉMÉÇiÉ SÉSÉÉÇ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè* àÉÖZÉä {ÉiÉÉ xÉcÉÓ, àÉé {ÉiÉÉ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉÒ* I may inform the House that Shri Vilas Muttemwar, in whose name the item is listed in today's List of Business, has in his letter of today requested that Shri Madhavrao Scindia may be allowed to initiate the discussion on the subject in his place, and the Speaker has acceded to Shri Muttemwar's request. THE MINISTER OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND MINISTER OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (SHRI PRAMOD MAHAJAN): Madam, I do not mind Shri Madhavrao Scindia speaking, but my request is that this should not be taken as a precedent in future. I do not mind his speaking at this juncture as an exception. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Speaker has taken this decision. 1608 hours (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) SHRI PRAMOD MAHAJAN: I am not saying that he should not speak now. SHRI VAIKO (SIVAKASI): When a Member's name is mentioned in the List of Business, common practice is that he should initiate the discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • SUPREME COURT of INDIA Page 1 of 10
    http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5943-5945 of 1997 PETITIONER: Dr. Karan Singh RESPONDENT: State of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/04/2004 BENCH: Y.K. Sabharwal & Dr.AR.Lakshmanan. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T Y.K.Sabharwal, J. The main issue to be determined in these appeals is whether 563 articles lying in 'Toshakhana' (Treasury of the State of Jammu & Kashmir) can be declared as the private property of the appellant or this issue deserves fresh determination by Government of India or it be referred to arbitration for adjudication. The background under which the issue has come up for consideration may first be noticed. The appellant is son of Maharaja Hari Singh, ex-ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. An instrument of accession of Jammu and Kashmir was executed by Maharaja Hari Singh on 26th October, 1947. The articles in question comprising of jewellery and gold articles etc. were transferred from Toshakhana at Jammu to Toshakhana at Srinagar on 17th September, 1951. Maharaja Hari Singh died on 26th April, 1961. During his lifetime, Maharaja Hari Singh did not claim the articles in question as private property. The Government of India, in pursuance of clause (22) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India, recognized appellant as a successor to late Maharaja Sir Hari Singh w.e.f. 26th April, 1961. By Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, rulership was abolished w.e.f. 28th December, 1971. The abolition, however, did not affect the ownership of the rulers of their private property as distinct from State property.
    [Show full text]