Struggle for return of Article 370 not ladder to chair for me: Ruhullah responds to Para - Greater Kashmir

Srinagar, Oct 31: Member Parliament from Srinagar Lok Sabha seat and senior leader National Conference (NC), Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi said on Thursday that struggle for the return of Article 370 and other rights, is not a ladder to chair for him, rather “it is his belief and conviction”.

Replying back to PDP youth leader and MLA Pulwama Waheed-ur-Rehman Para over raising critical issues including restoration of Article 370, ban on liquor sale in J&K, misuse of UAPA, and reservation bill, the MP Ruhullah said that struggle for the return of Article 370 and other rights is not a ladder to chair for him.

Taking to micro-blogging site X (formerly Twitter), the MP Ruhullah said: “The struggle for the return of our rights and dignity (Article 370) is not a ladder to chair for me, it is my belief and conviction. So, more than theatrics, it is sentiment, emotion, expression and pragmatic approach what I involve in my struggle for it”.

Replying point-wise, he said: “Do you want me to commit a mistake by getting the Resolution for 370 rejected by the Parliament where the same BJP which abrogated it is in majority? And then the history says that the parliament resolved against the Art 370?”

“I introduced the liquor bill keeping in mind that the BJP has declared Gujarat a dry state, therefore there is a slight chance of opening the debate and getting the support for the same in J&K. And I also started a conversation with the fellow parliamentarians from other parties”.

Ruhullah on X continued: “In terms of a Bill for the restoration of art 370, I don’t see BJP letting that bill be  passed. And once again do you want a bill for article 370 voted out in Parliament? As far the “opening of dialogue” is concerned, I started that inside the parliament even without introducing a bill”.

He added, “I submitted a stared question in the parliament asking the revocation of not only UAPA but also AFSFA. That was not listed in the business. So, keep some patience. I have only had one working session of parliament till now. There is a lot to come. By the way, it is in a way too harsh to expect me to clear the mess created by the decision of 2014/15 in one session of Parliament”.

“I did not protest outside the parliament, in fact talked about it inside the parliament where it matters the most. I took them on inside the parliament. Now, since my party has formed the govt in J&K, I expect a collective and result oriented effort on this with all my colleagues. I understood the matter before my election, committed myself to it during the election and stood by my commitment after being elected to the Parliament. Also when assembly elections were announced, I took this matter to my party and it gracefully agreed to it and made it the part of the manifesto. Now, after being elected to the assembly, I am sure my party is as committed to it as it was before. I have no confusion about it. I have never tweeted (X) and then deleted my statement about it. By the way, I missed your opinion about the reservation during the elections. What was it during the elections?”.

The post on X held: “I like being put under a regular scrutiny for the cause of 370. That’s what I wanted from the day one. We all start talking about it and asking for the return of it. When I tweeted about it from inside the house arrest when 2G was restored, I was alone. Today I am happy that I am being scrutinised by a large numbers of people whether I am still committed to the cause or not”.

Earlier PDP leader and MLA Pulwama, Waheed-ur-Rehman Para questioned Para for not bringing a resolution in the Parliament condemning the abrogation of Article 370.

In a post on X, the PDP leader had asked: “Why didn’t you propose a resolution in Parliament condemning the abrogation of Article 370 on August 5, 2019, given that it was a parliamentary decision? This historic change reshaped the political landscape of Jammu & Kashmir, and a formal resolution would have been a strong symbolic gesture”.

“If you could introduce a bill to restrict liquor sales in J&K, why didn’t you bring forward a bill focused on restoring Article 370 or re-establishing J&K’s special status?* Such an initiative could have at least opened a dialogue on one of the most contentious issues affecting the region,” he said.

“Since law and order is a central subject, why haven’t you actively pushed for legislation in Parliament aimed at curbing the misuse of UAPA?* This law has been widely criticized for its role in prolonged detentions without trial. With broad support from the INDIA alliance, a concerted effort could provide relief to many affected individuals in J&K,” Para posted on X.

He continued: “The reservation bill, which impacts J&K, was debated and can be amended in Parliament. Why was there no formal protest or legislative action taken against the questionable reservation policies in the region?* This would have been a significant platform to voice concerns about the fairness of these policies”.

The PDP leader added: “The use of the term “pragmatic approach” by you stood out to me. It didn’t sound anything like the Aga Ruhullah Sahab we saw and heard during the two successive election campaigns. In fact, if I’m not wrong, you mocked the very argument of pragmatism and probability by repeatedly saying that the effort and intention to fight against injustice should not be guided by what we perceive to be the possibility of the outcome – that the outcome should be left to the Almighty. Be that as it may, I don’t grudge the NC of its shift towards “pragmatism” — nor do the people who voted for NC. The people are however amused at the very palpable sense of meekness and surrender being demonstrated by the NC Government in its offerings of apology to the BJP”.

“But then I’ve heard you have also voiced your disgust at the Kani Shawl offerings among your friends and well-wishers, even if you haven’t pointed out the same to the one who gifted the shawls”.

“I humbly disagree with you. Tabling a resolution opposing Article 370 abrogation in Lok Sabha can’t possibly be a “mistake”, nor can the lack of such a resolution be assumed to be a tactical leave. The last Lok Sabha has already voted in favour of the decision. This time around, had you decided to table the resolution — you as an MP from the JKNC — would have reiterated the representative anguish on behalf of the people of J&K and also sought support from the INDIA bloc allies of JKNC. Nearly 200 MPs voting in support of your resolution would be a very encouraging statement of resolve in the fight to restore our lost stature and rights. For, it is certain that JKNC wouldn’t be a part of the INDIA bloc if the INDIA bloc supports the abrogation of Article 370? Also, why aid the powers that be to sweep the Article 370 issue under the carpet in this Lok Sabha that you are a member of. And what is a more stronger and vociferous statement of dissent than a resolution? A resolution in the J&K Assembly can complement a resolution in the Lok Sabha by you — the two resolutions wouldn’t be mutually exclusive”.

“I’m once again amused at the contradiction in your argument here — with the same strength in the Lok Sabha, how do you see one Bill in the LS having a better chance of passing than a possible resolution on Article 370? Let’s assume your embrace of “pragmatism” is final but even then how is this dichotomy an exercise in pragmatism? If you have started conversations with fellow MPs in the LS about the Liquor Ban Bill, should we assume you have started creating a consensus on the Article 370 resolution as well? And what better way to start this consensus than seeking the support of your INDIA bloc allies in the parliament — especially the Congress, with which you had a pre-poll alliance in J&K and a party which has extended support to your Government in J&K? Why are you keen on allowing them the ambiguity and equivocation they seek on this serious issue? Let them choose a side on Article 370. Why must NC be a party to their lack of clarity?”.

“You would agree that we have been very patient and courteous in our role in opposition and will continue to be patient. We are solely interested in the cause of justice for the people of J&K and reserve the humble right/privilege to remind you about the context of the mandate received by the NC. As for the mess, you will also need to clean the mess of 1975, 1987 and 1996 Jenab. Three generations of Kashmiris have been waiting for that mess to be cleared,” the post on X added.

“The confusion arises, both in my individual opinion and in public perception, in your distinction between your person and your party on these critical issues. You, in most of your arguments here or otherwise, have switched from speaking TO your party and speaking FOR your party — depending on expedience. When you say that you took the matter of the Article 370 resolution to your party and they gracefully accepted to include it in the manifesto, you’re invariably again telling the people of J&K that the party wasn’t naturally and on its own initiative inclined towards a resolution on Article 370. So while you say that you have “no confusion” about it, your actions indicate otherwise. You have repeatedly and publicly hinted at fighting against your own party IF it absolved itself of its moral responsibilities viz-a-viz Article 370. This is again a contradiction. If there is no doubt or confusion, as you suggest in your response, why the repeated alarms of caution?”.

“About the tweet on reservation policy and my views on it, I tend to be careless on Twitter sometimes and technology gets the better of me as some of my tweets get accidentally deleted. Jenab it reminds me of my school days in Pulwama when I sometimes used to forget my actual Date Of Birth (DOB) and face the consequences of such a lapse. Thankfully ‘teachers’ are more liberal, understanding and benevolent these days,” PDP leader added.

“Jenab I am sorry you were under house-arrest and had to wait for 2G restoration to voice your opinions in the aftermath of what was done. Not as much of a sacrifice, but I was in Jail — in a small, dark, putrid cell — or else I would have seconded your tweet above and beyond partisan lines without an adieu,” he continued.