Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Monday came down heavily on National Conference (NC) leader Omar Abdullah for reviving the old demand that Jammu and Kashmir should have a separate Prime Minister and President, saying it was only intended to create a separatist psyche.
Abdullah on Monday said he would work to restore the titles ‘Wazir-e-Azam’ (Prime Minister) and ‘Sadr-e-Riyasat’ (head of state) in Jammu and Kashmir, triggering angry reactions from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
In a blog post, Jaitley categorically said that new India will never allow any government to commit such blunders.
“The two mainstream parties in Kashmir are increasingly losing their identity. The separatists and the terrorists want a part of the state to segregate from India. India will never accept this,” he said.
The senior BJP leader said that India has already given a loud and clear message both to the separatists/terrorists and Pakistan that “Azadi is not a distant possibility. It is an impossibility.”
Slamming Abdullah, Jaitley said his statement was only intended to create a “separatist psyche”.
“Little do these demandeurs realise how much they are hurting the country as also their own people. The new India will never allow any government to commit such blunders,” he said.
Jaitley said the arguments of the National Conference and People’s Democratic Front (PDP) over Article 35A were completely unacceptable.
Jaitley highlighted the statement of the two parties that the constitutional link between the state and the country is based on the solemn assurance of Article 35A.
“The argument is completely unacceptable. Article 35A was not there in 1947 when the Instrument of Accession was signed in the month of October. In 1950, when the Constitution came into force, it was not there. It was only surreptitiously inserted in 1954.
“How can it be the essential Constitutional link? The challenge is being heard by the Supreme Court. Why intimidate the Court which is hearing the matter,” he asked.
Jaitley also said that history is never reversed by court judgements.
“The argument of revocability is as absurd as a suggestion that if the Indian Independence Act was revoked by the British Parliament, we will lose our Independence,” he said.