The ruling National Conference’s proposal for autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir could be examined by the Centre, a working group has said, adding a call also needed to be taken on how long to continue Article 370 (special status for J&K) in its present form.
The recommendations were made by the Prime Minister’s Fifth Working Group on Centre-State Relationship, headed by former Supreme Court judge S Saghir Ahmad.
“Autonomy and its demand can be examined in the light of the ‘Kashmir Accord’ or in some other manner or on the basis of some other formula as the prime minister may deem appropriate so as to restore autonomy to the extent possible,” said justice Saghir in the report submitted to chief minister Omar Abdullah on Wednesday.
The ruling National Conference government had passed the autonomy report in the assembly on June 26, 2000, but the proposal was rejected by the NDA government at the Centre as it would have created “a state within the state”.
Under the resolution, J&K will enjoy complete autonomy and only four issues — defence, foreign policy, currency and communications — will lie with the Centre. Besides, the nomenclature of chief minister and governor would be changed to prime minister and Sadar-e-Riyasat. Under the autonomous status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir in 1951, the state has its own constitution, flag and residuary powers.
Prime minister Manmohan Singh had set up five working groups in 2006 to look into different aspects of J&K. Four of them have submitted their reports. The groups were boycotted by separatists.
The fifth working group has kept the option open for PDP’s self-rule proposal. “Basically it [self-rule] appears to relate to ‘autonomy’ in a wider context, which requires to be considered by the Centre if and whenapproached with documents containing specific proposals of self-rule,” the report said.
Former judge Saghir said Muzaffar Baig of PDP gave a verbal explanation of the concept of self-rule, but did not provide documents that elaborated on the idea. This is the reason why it could not be considered in detail. “This document should be on record,” he said.
Comments