BJP Leader Dares NC to Find 'Special Status' Mention in Constitution During J&K Assembly Clash
In a sharp escalation of political tensions in Jammu & Kashmir, the governing National Conference's persistent demand for restoring the region's "special status" since taking office in 2024 has drawn a forceful counter from the Bharatiya Janata Party. On Saturday, BJP's leader of opposition, Sunil Sharma, launched a direct challenge in the assembly, arguing that no such constitutional term exists and dismissing the call as "no status."
Constitutional Dare Sparks Heated Exchange
"Show me where the words 'special status' are written for J&K in the Indian Constitution. If they can find it, I am ready to face any punishment," declared Sharma, setting the stage for a contentious debate. This bold dare came as a direct response to NC legislator Javid Hassan Baig's demand for special status during discussions on Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's budget presentation on Friday.
Baig had contended that the concept of special status was firmly enshrined in Article 370, which historically defined the constitutional relationship between the erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir state and the Indian Union. He elaborated that Article 35A, which flowed from Article 370, played an even more crucial role by safeguarding land rights and government jobs exclusively for J&K residents.
NC's Constitutional Interpretation Versus BJP's Rejection
The NC legislator further explained that Jammu & Kashmir's own Constitution existed under the broader framework of the Indian Constitution, granting the region internal autonomy while external sovereignty had been surrendered to the Union. According to Baig, Article 370, Article 35A, the J&K Constitution, and the J&K state flag collectively constituted what was known as "special status"—precisely what his party seeks to restore.
Sharma countered this interpretation with unwavering skepticism. He insisted that the NC's demand must be supported by an explicit constitutional term, firmly asserting that "Article 370 has been buried." The BJP leader questioned, "What is special status? Where is it mentioned? It is mentioned nowhere." He suggested that many states request special packages and incentives for employment or development, which might be labeled as special status, but emphasized that no specific constitutional provision exists for J&K in this regard.
Political Context and Broader Implications
Outside the assembly, Sharma reiterated his position, stating there is no reference to "special status" in the context of J&K's accession or merger with India. He accused the National Conference of misleading voters with ambiguous terminology. This debate occurs against a backdrop of significant political developments:
- On November 6, 2024, shortly after the NC was voted into office, the assembly passed a resolution seeking restoration of special status without clearly defining the term.
- In May of the previous year, a key NC meeting chaired by president Farooq Abdullah adopted a resolution for both restoration of special status and full J&K statehood, yet again stopping short of defining the phrase.
- Other political parties, including former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti's PDP and Sajad Lone's Peoples Conference, have previously urged the NC to clarify its position on this contentious issue.
The assembly clash highlights deep-seated constitutional and political divisions in Jammu & Kashmir, with the NC advocating for historical autonomy provisions and the BJP maintaining a strict interpretation of the current constitutional framework. As debates continue, the lack of a clear definition for "special status" remains a central point of contention, potentially influencing future legislative and electoral dynamics in the region.
