Akhil Gogoi questions govt. sincerity on propose Constitutional safeguards to Assam

[caption id="attachment_264249" align="alignleft" width="350"] Akhil Gogoi[/caption] Guwahati, Aug. 5 (PTI): Condemning revocation of the Article 370 as "one of the darkest days" of Indian democracy, peasant leader and RTI activist Akhil Gogoi on Monday questioned the Centre's sincerity on the proposed Constitutional safeguards to the people of Assam. It is a crucial test before the people of Assam who have been seeking special status and Constitutional safeguards, said Gogoi who heads the Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS). "The development (abrogation of Art 370) came at a time when the Centre is talking about giving Constitutional safeguards to Assam through Clause 6 of the Assam Accord," Gogoi told a press conference. Clause 6 of Accord seeks to provide constitutional, legislative and administrative safeguards to protect, preserve and promote the cultural, social, linguistic identity and heritage of the Assamese people. The Centre has set up a committee in January this year to implement Clause 6 of the Assam Accord. A six-year agitation by the AASU demanding identification and deportation of illegal immigrants culminated with the signing of the Assam Accord by the Rajiv Gandhi government and the All Assam Students Union (AASU) on August 15, 1985. Gogoi expressed apprehension that following abolition of the Consitutional safeguards of the people of Kashmir, the ongoing deliberations to give Constitutional safeguards to Assamese people will lead to nowhere. "This BJP government had curtailed Assam's special state status in 2015. We suspect that the BJP is going to curtail the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. It appears that the government will also attack the benefits given to the tribals in the country," the RTI activist alleged. Introduction of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill in Parliament, proposing bifurcation of the state into two union territories -- Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh -- is the biggest attack on India's federal structure till date, claimed Gogoi.

 BJP ally IPFT in Tripura oppose scraping of Article 370

The Indigenous People's Front of Tripura (IPFT), the junior ally of the BJP-led Tripura government, on Monday opposed Union Home Minister Amit Shahs proposal seeking to scrap Article 370 which gives special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Tripura's oldest non-Left tribal-based party, Indigenous Nationalist Party of Tripura (INPT), also opposed Union Home Minister's proposal to revoke Article 370. "We strongly oppose Home Minister Amit Shah's proposal seeking to axe Article 370 of the Constitution," IPFT President and Tripura's Revenue and Fisheries Minister Narendra Chandra Debbarma told IANS. He said: "The IPFT always wants to continue both Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitutions to accord special powers to Jammu and Kashmir. We want to maintain the status-quo on both the important provisions of the constitutions." Debbarma said that they would soon write a letter to the Central government not to knife Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution. The IPFT, a tribal-based local party, has been agitating since 2009 for a separate state to be carved out by upgrading the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC), which has jurisdiction of over two-thirds of Tripura's 10,491 sq km area, home to over 12,16,000 people. Opposition INPT, which with the merger of several tribal based parties including Tripura Upajati Juba Samity (TUJS formed in 1967) was constituted in 2002, leaders said that if the centre scraps Article 370 and Article 35A, it would hurt the sentiments of the majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. "Status-quo must be maintained on the Article 370 and Article 35A of the constitutions to avoid any further troubles," INPT General Secretary Jagadhish Debbarma told IANS.

Arunachal people welcome Centre's abrogation of Article 370

The Centre's decision to abrogate the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcate it into separate Union territories was welcomed by people in Arunachal Pradesh, which also enjoys special provisions. Article 371 gives special powers to the Governor on the directions from the President with regard to the law and order in Arunachal Pradesh. Majority of the people in the state welcomed the Centre's decision and hoped that peace would prevail in Jammu and Kashmir with more "developmental activities" in the pipeline. P Cheda, a prominent businessman here claimed that it would easier now for the government to control Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism. Cheda said it would be better if Arunachal Pradesh gets back the Union territiory status for "more development". The eastern most state of the country was carved out of Assam and given a Union territory status in January 1972. It was granted statehood 15 years later in February 1987 and became the 23rd state of India. T Gadi, a senior citizen, is of the view that the Centre's decision would "integrate" the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the terrorist activities would be minimised. Welcoming the move, Social activist J Payeng said had the decision been taken earlier, Jammu and Kashmir would have been a "different state" today. As per the Article 371, which is in force in Arunachal Pradesh, though the governor will consult the council of ministers, his decision will be final. The special powers of the governor will cease only when the president gives any direction.

Centre's J&K move sparks fear in Mizoram 

The abrogation of Article 370, which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir, raised apprehensions in Mizoram on Monday, with academicians and politicians fearing that the NDA government might scrap next the special provisions that protect the interests of the state's indigenous people. Article 371 G of the Constitution states that the Parliament cannot decide on the matters of the religious and social practices of the Mizos, civil and criminal law of the land, land ownership transfer, and customary law procedure without the consent of the Assembly. The provision came into effect in 1986 following the signing of the historic Mizo Accord between the Centre and the erstwhile underground Mizo National Front (MNF). Mizoram, then a Union territory, was granted the status of full-fledged statehood on February 20, 1987. Lallianchhunga, assistant professor of the political science department in the Mizoram University, alleged that the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government had been violating the federal spirits of the Constitution and moving towards a "unitary government". "The Centre, in the name of economic development and internal security, may soon target the northeastern states with special provisions and statuses," he said. Riachho, a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, said the Centre did not honour the Instrument of Accession signed on October 26, 1947, by Hari Singh, the then ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. According to the IAS officer, it seemed that the Article 371 G in Mizoram might also come under danger. Newly-floated political party People's Representation for Identity and Status of Mizoram (PRISM) also condemned the Centre's move, saying the "northeastern states were no longer safe in the hands of the NDA government". The Centre had on Monday revoked Article 370 and proposed that the Jammu and Kashmir be bifurcated into two Union territories -- Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.