Jammu, Feb 07 (KNO): Pandemonium broke out in the Legislative Assembly on Saturday over the issue of special status of the erstwhile state, with ruling National Conference (NC) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLAs sparring over it.
As per the news agency—Kashmir News Observer (KNO), during the budget discussion, NC MLA Javaid Hussain Baig said that Article 370, Article 35-A, the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution, and the J&K flag together constitute what is referred to as the special status of Jammu & Kashmir.
Leader of Opposition Sunil Kumar Sharma interrupted, asserting that the term special status does not exist in the Constitution of India. “If the word special status exists in the Constitution of India, I am ready to face any punishment you hand over to me. What is special status?” Sharma questioned.
Intervening in the debate, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, Satish Sharma, remarked that “those who do not know their history cannot create history.” Minister for Horticulture, Javid Dar, told the Leader of Opposition that he had no right to disrupt the House.
As Treasury benches prevented the Leader of Opposition from speaking, BJP MLAs stood up and shouted slogans of “Bharat Mata Ki Jai, Bharat Mata Ki Jai.” NC MLAs also stood up, raising slogans of “Special Status Ayega, Special Status Ayega.”
Once order was restored, Baig resumed his speech, claiming that the erosion of Article 370 was responsible for alienation and violence.
Similar scenes were witnessed when Independent MLA from Rajouri, Muzaffar Khan, said that every state should have internal autonomy and its own constitution.
“We should also have our own flag,” Khan said.
His remarks triggered protests from BJP legislators, who demanded that they be expunged from the records.
Deputy Chief Minister rebuked the protesting BJP lawmakers.
“Don’t show so much hatred towards the J&K flag. When you were in power, you were hoisting two flags, “he told them.
NC MLA from Eidgah, Mubarak Gul, who was presiding over the House, remarked that the comments should be expunged from the record if they had hurt them. His ruling was objected to by NC lawmakers. However, he clarified that he had not ordered the remarks to be expunged—(KNO)