[Assam] The autonomy issue

Fri Aug 13 06:20:31 IST 2010

Excellent research, KJD.

The GOI seems to have thrown in everything for these two states, except the
kitchen sink.

In the case of J & K, even the Pakistanis want to have a say in this matter.

But, I do think this tailor-made autonomy for each state is because of a
vacillating Center. Given the J &K
situation as you list below, why is the PM bringing it up again? Looks like
J & K already has an autonomy.

--Ram

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:24 PM, kamal deka <kjit.deka at gmail.com> wrote:

> Take a look at the' Naga- Indian' imbroglio.Article 371A ( the
> Constitution was amended to accommodate that) provides various
> safeguards for Nagaland.These include a provision whereby no Act of
> Parliament in respect of the religious or social practices of
> Nagas,Naga customary law and procedure,administration of civil and
> criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law
> and ownership and transfer of land shall apply to the state.IS THERE
> ANY REASON,AFTER  PROCURING ALL OF THE ABOVE( READ AUTONOMY),WHY NAGA
> IDENTITY OR CULTURE OR OTHER NAGA INTERESTS SHOULD BE INJURED OR
> ERODED ?
> And yet,NSCN proclaimed its motto to be "NAGALAND FOR CHRIST".The NSCN
> manifesto exclaims that Nagas are " DIFFERENT FROM OTHER INDIANS
> BECAUSE THEY ARE CHRISTIANS and they could lose their identity " in an
> ocean of Hindus and other non-christians in India,completely
> sidestepping the fact that India is a  secular state in which freedom
> of worship is guaranteed by the Constitution.An valid arguement can be
> made by citing the fact that for every Christian in Nagaland,there are
> almost 20 elsewhere in the country.The MAR THOMAS CHURCH OF KERALA IS
> ONE OF THE VERY OLDEST ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AND IT HAS FLOURISHED FOR
> 1940 YEARS BECAUSE OF THE TOLERANCE AND RESPECT SHOWN BY THE PEOPLE
> BELONGING TO OTHER FAITHS.AND IF ASSURANCE WERE NEEDED,THIS IS TO BE
> FOUND IN THE INCREASE IN NAGALAND'S OWN CHRISTIAN POPULATION SINCE
> 1947.
>
>  Now take a look at the custom-made Article 370 which mandates that
> the applicability of every law of the Indian Parliament to J&K
> requires i. consultation with the J&K government if the subject matter
> of the law pertains to defence or external affairs or communications,
> and ii. concurrence of the J&K government if the law pertains to
> subjects other than defence or external affairs or communications. No
> other state in India has such privilege. That is why the Indian Penal
> Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act and rules framed for the
> Central Bureau of Investigation are among the several Parliamentary
> enactments which are simply not in vogue in J&K.
>
> As bad as that, if not worse, is the fact that many provisions of the
> Constitution of India are either i. simply not applicable to J&K state
> or ii. are applicable to J&K only in a modified form or iii. subsumed
> by the provisions of the J&K constitution.
>
> Further, as in the case a Parliamentary law, application to J&K of a
> provision of the Indian Constitution requires consultation/consent of
> the J&K government depending upon the subject of the constitutional
> provision. Again, no other state in India has such a privilege of
> saying 'Yes' or 'No' to a constitutional measure.
>
> J&K is the only state in India --
> Where a distinction has been permitted to be made between state
> citizens (designated as 'permanent residents') and other Indian
> citizens (who are not 'permanent residents') and where -- contrary to
> the principles of equality before the law (Article 14), prohibition of
> discrimination on the ground of place of birth (Article 15) and
> equality of opportunity in public employment (Article 16), -- laws are
> permissible to confer special rights and privileges on 'permanent
> residents' with respect to employment under the state government,
> acquisition of immovable property in the state, settlement in the
> state and right to scholarships as well as other state government aid
>
> Ø      whose area, boundaries and name cannot be altered without the
> consent of the state government
>
> Ø      whose legislative assembly has a tenure of six years
>
> Ø      where no amendment of the Indian constitution shall have effect
> without consulting/securing concurrence of the state government even
> in regard to disposition of the state through a treaty with another
> country
>
> Ø      whose government's request or concurrence is needed for Delhi
> to declare emergency for reasons only of internal disturbance in the
> state (Article 352)
>
> Ø      where emergency declared under Article 356 can become
> applicable without suspending the machinery of the state constitution
>
> Ø      where fiscal emergency cannot be declared (Article 360)
>
> Ø      where provisions for the Anglo-Indian community and minorities
> do not apply.
>
> DO WE REALLY NEED ANY OTHER DEFINITION OF AUTONOMY? A  PERFECT EXAMPLE
> OF A COUNTRY WITHIN A COUNTRY!!!!
>
> KJD
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Ram Sarangapani <assamrs at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The PM recently made a remark about being open to discussing the issue of
> > autonomy for Jammu & Kashmir (within the ambit of the Constitution).
> >
> > Maybe someone knows, but what exactly is the meaning of 'autonomy' as
> held
> > by the PM? By the time politicos & spin masters get through with it,
> > the meaning of autonomy will look nothing like what the dictionary says.
> >
> >
> > This from the TOI
> >
> >
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PM-Manmohans-autonomy-remark-wont-help-solve-Kashmir-problem-Pak/articleshow/6299668.cms
> > _______________________________________________
> > assam mailing list
> > assam at assamnet.org
> > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> assam mailing list
> assam at assamnet.org
> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>