Prof. Kali Dass
A big discussion has started in the ongoing Assembly elections over the Art 370. Before we go into the discussion over Art 370, state OBCs have always opposed the state rulers over its mis-use. They used it as an instrument of repression and suppression of the constitutional rights of the poor.
The way in which the leaders of different political parties enter into discussion, only reflects as Art 370 is only their personal property. They should have thought seriously over its mis-use as an obstacle against the natural and free flow of justice for the state people for whom it is meant for.
When rulers allowed the rules and directions of the Apex Court which are in their favour, then they do not talk about Art 370. But when such rules go in favour of the poor; then they talk about Art 370. It clearly means that Art 370 has been used like the personal property of such political parties.
State OBCs ask Prof. Soz; Azad who made high claims of setting up of OBC Advisory and Development Board with its Chairman Omar Abdullah, the State Chief Minsiter and Kuldeep Raj Verma as its Vice-Chairman. They are begging votes on the name of development. The aim of the OBC Advisory Board was to allow the social justice to the State OBCs, but the board was changed into a worthless and a useless machine which does not grind any floor. The reason was to befool the people to loot the votes in the name of OBC Board; a treacherous move. So Art 370 was made to play the main role to stop the natural flow of justice and that was the inner intension of the State Chief Minister who could not hold even a single meaningful meeting of the board and Kuldeep Raj Verma could not dare to revolt as he was under the thumb of his mentors. Like wise remained the views of Mufti Mohd Sayeed who too could not under-stand the Art 16(1) under which RBA and ALC reservations could have been adjusted (a legal point); but he flatly refused when he was the Chief Minister. He was also asked “What would be your PDP’s behaviour which can attract the State OBCs”. He replied “Abhi Mein Kuch Nahi Keh Sakata” a dictatorial reply. When a deputation of the union met Mehbooba in March 2014 and requested her to raise the issue of OBCs reservation in the Assembly; she said, “we have not eve thought of OBCs yet and these OBCs are not with us” was the reply. If both Patron Mufti and President Mehbooba talk like this and also plead the Art 370, then it is very strange for the State people. Art 370 should be used like a wire-net in flowing water of canal which does not stop the flow of water but other un-wanted material to pass.
There had been no use of such a hot discussion during Assembly elections if Art 370 had not been used against the State subjects. NC, Congress and PDP vertically divided the OBCs 27 per cent reservation for RBA (20 per cent) and ALC (3 per cent); still having eyes over the reservation of Pahari speaking people (people befooling slogan) who allowed the leaders to do? and that how did they disobeyed the Apex Court’s judgment; is nothing but a rule of muscle force which is expected only in jungle rule that has been cherished through Art 370.
State rulers could have refused not to take away dark coloured films from the vehicles under the direction of the Supreme Court; because rulers do not carry out the Apex Court’s judgment. But rulers did it because it did not affect their health. But implementation of Mandal Report could have affected them as the have-nots could have got some solace. So the rulers made Art 370 as their own property and instead of opposing others over Art 370; state rulers like Prof. Soz, Azad, Mufti Mohd. Sayeed, Mehbooba, Omar Abdullah would have not given any chance to other leaders to oppose Art 370 if they had made its best use and utilised it for the natural flow of justice for the State people.
Similarly, if the Art 370 allows the natural flow of justice for the State Subjects, it is a bridge otherwise it widens the gap and drifts the State away from rest of the country and top-class leaders of PDP, NC and Congress are working against the State Subjects on the pretext of Art 370. Those who only use it against their own State Subjects take the Art 370 as their personal property. They should have made Art 370 as a two way traffic in the State.
Also, some of the so called OBC leaders also running from post to pillar in different political parties could not understand and now at this juncture cannot understand the purpose of their being in such pol. parties. Even after the entire satisfaction that these political parties are totally against the state OBCs by making the mis-use of Art 370, these parties have not kept the problems of the State OBCs in their manifesto; have not even mentioned the name of OBCs in their manifesto. It seems that the so called OBC leaders are in the habit of subordination and feel proud of being stamped on their backs in the name of a political party. These leaders must shun such anti-people and anti-OBC parties in order to safe guard the interest of their young ones and generations to come. It is at their sweet will whether they want to be called as loyal to their generations or to be called as loyal for their respective political parties only to satisfy their subordination habit with hope against hopes.
It is appealed to the State people in general and state OBCs in particular to go against the tested political parties for political change with better expectation.
It is difficult to remove the opponent by force but very easy to remove by your vote; a powerful weapon in a democratic State.
