Category: National

Jalandhar, Dec 25: Lt Col Karanbir Singh Natt, Sena Medal, who was in coma for last eight years after receiving serious injuries while fighting militants in Kupwara district in Jammu and Kashmir in 2015, passed away on Saturday in Military Hospital Jalandhar.

Brig BA Dhillon (retd), Director Sainik Welfare, Punjab, confirmed the news of Lt Col Natt’s demise.

Lt Col Natt was serving as the second-in-command (2IC) of 160 Territorial Army Battalion (JAK Rifles) at the time of the incident in November 2015 while leading a combing operation against militants holed up in a village near Kupwara.

Lt Col Natt was originally commissioned as a Short Service Commission officer in The Brigade of Guards in 1998. He served in the regiment for 14 years before being relieved from service in 2012. He joined the Territorial Army following his completion of service as a Short Service Commission officer.

Lt Col Natt had received grievous injuries to his face, particularly lower jaw, when on November 25, 2015 a terrorist holed up in a hut in Haji Naka village in Kupwara district of J&K, close to the Line of Control, fired upon him. Doctors in the Military Hospital in Srinagar and later in Army Research and Referral Hospital New Delhi had conducted frantic surgeries in him to save his life.

The family of Lt Col Natt originally belongs to village Dhadiala Natt, near Batala. He is survived by his wife Navpreet Kaur, and daughters, Guneet and Ashmeet.– (The Indian Express)

New Delhi- Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday blamed India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s “two major blunders” — declaring a ceasefire without winning the entire Kashmir and taking the issue to the United Nations — for the sufferings of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Replying to a debate in the Lok Sabha on the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, Shah said if Nehru had taken the right steps, a large chunk of territory would not have been ceded and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir would have been part of India.

“I support the word that was used here — Nehruvian blunder. Because of the blunder that was committed during the time of Nehru, Kashmir had to suffer. With responsibility, I want to say that the two big blunders that happened during the tenure of Jawaharlal Nehru, happened due to his decisions, because of which Kashmir had to suffer for years,” Shah said.

“Kashmir had to suffer due to Nehruvian blunders. One was that when our Army was winning and as soon as Punjab area was reached, ceasefire was declared and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir was born. If the ceasefire would have been (declared) three days later, PoK would have been part of India,” the home minister said.

The ceasefire made without winning the entire Kashmir was one “blunder” and the other was taking the issue to the UN.

There was an uproar by the opposition benches over the remarks on Nehru and they staged a walkout but returned later.

After their walkout, BJD leader Bhartruhari Mahtab said the home minister should also talk about the “Himalayan blunder”, a reference to Nehru’s actions leading up to the war with China in 1962. Shah quipped that his talking about two blunders had upset the opposition benches and if he had used the phrase “Himalayan blunder”, they would have resigned.

Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla said the remarks made were not an insult to anyone and were only made to put things in context.

In his remarks, Shah also alleged that the Kashmir matter was taken to the UN in a hurry.

“If at all it had to be taken to the UN, it should have been sent under Article 51 rather than Article 35 of the UN Charter,” he said, asserting that he of course believes that the issue should not have been taken to the UN in the first place.

Shah also quoted Nehru as saying later that the ceasefire was a “mistake”. Shah added that it was not Nehru’s mistake but a blunder.

“So much land of this country was lost, it was a historic blunder,” the home minister added.

Talking about the abrogation of Article 370, Shah said it had nothing to do with going back on promise as it was a temporary article and had to go.

“You did not have the courage, PM Narendra Modi showed courage and did away with it,” he said, referring to the opposition benches.

Shah pointed out that the two bills on Jammu and Kashmir seek to nominate two Kashmiri Migrant community members, including a woman, to the assembly.

One seat in the Jammu and Kashmir assembly will be set aside for people displaced from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, the home minister said.

More than 45,000 people have lost their lives due to terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir so far, he said.

Shah said the government’s focus was on ending the terror ecosystem in Jammu and Kashmir.

He said a plan to have zero terror incident in Jammu and Kashmir is in force for three years and it will be successful by 2026.

“I believe Modi government will return to power in 2024 and by 2026, I hope there will be no terror incident in Jammu and Kashmir,” he said.

Shah said the two bills will give justice to those deprived of their rights for the last 70 years and asserted that reservation to the displaced people will give them a voice in the legislature.

He said that had terrorism been tackled at the beginning without considering vote-bank politics, Kashmiri Pandits would not have had to leave Kashmir Valley.

He said one of the bills seeks to give representation in the assembly to those who had to leave Kashmir due to terrorism.

Shah also lashed out at the Congress for talking about backward classes, saying that if any party has harmed backward classes and come in the way of their growth, it is the Congress.

He said Narendra Modi was born into a poor family and became the prime minister and he knows the pain of the backward classes and the poor.

The Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill were passed by the Lok Sabha on Wednesday.

Related

NEW DELHI, Dec 4: The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict in the long-pending case challenging the Union Government’s 2019 decision to repeal the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution this month (December 2023). The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and composed of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, had presided over these hearings.
The Apex Court had reserved the judgement in the matter on 5 September 2023 after hearing it for sixteen long days. It may be recalled that the petitioners in the matter had also challenged the J&K Reorganization Act which bifurcated the State into Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh.
With Justice SK Kaul retiring from Supreme Court on December 25, 2023 and December 15, 2023 being the last working day for Supreme Court before winter vacations, it is likely that the judgement would come out soon.
The hearing in the matter, which commenced on August 2, 2023, witnessed extensive arguments and discussions over a span of sixteen days. This landmark case had remained dormant for over three years, with its last listing dating back to March 2020.
The petitioner counsels argued for the first nine days and stressed upon the unique nature of J&K’s relationship with India which got embodied in the Indian constitutional setup, highlighting that the Maharaja of J&K did not give up the internal sovereignty to the Dominion of India. Thus, while the power to make laws relating to foreign affairs, communication, and defence lied with the Union as per the Instrument of Accession (IoA), the internal sovereignty of J&K which provided it with powers to legislate on all other matters remained with the Maharaja. It was argued that Article 370 had assumed permanence and was no longer a ‘temporary’ provision post the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly in 1957. The petitioners further contended that the Indian parliament, under the current constitutional framework, could not convert itself into a Constituent Assembly. They also stressed upon the misuse of Article 356, which imposes President’s Rule in a State. It was emphasised that the purpose of Article 356 was to restore state machinery and not destroy it but the President’s Rule in J&K was imposed to destroy the state legislature. It was added that President’s Rule under Article 356 was in its nature “temporary” and thus permanent actions could not be taken under it. The petitioners also argued that the amendment of Article 370 through Article 367 was invalid. Finally, it was stated that while Article 3 of the Indian Constitution granted the power to Union to alter the boundaries of states and even create smaller states through bifurcation, it had never before been used to convert an entire state into a Union Territory (UT). The negative impact of turning J&K into a UT on the constitutional structure was also underlined. A detailed summary on petitioners arguments can be found here.
Per contra, the Union Government along with other respondents argued that the abrogation of Article 370 resolved the ‘psychological duality’ of the people of J&K and that there existed discrimination against the people of J&K before the abrogation as the Indian constitution was not fully applied to the state prior to 2019. It was underlined that it was very clear that the Constitution makers foresaw Article 370 as a ‘temporary’ provision and wanted it ‘to die’. Challenging the assertion of an exclusive special status for J&K, the respondents argued that during the late 1930s, a multitude of princely states were in the process of drafting their own constitutions. It was also submitted that the execution of a merger agreement was not necessary to become a part of the Indian nation. Further, internal sovereignty could not be confused with sovereignty. It was stated that J&K was only converted to a UT owing to it being a sensitive border state for a temporary time period and that its statehood would be restored. It was also argued that if Article 367 was not modified, it would have the effect on Article 370 becoming a permanent feature of the Indian Constitution, as sans the Constituent Assembly, Article 370 could never be modified. Finally, the respondents asserted that the J&K Constitution was subservient and subordinate to the Indian Constitution and the J&K Constitution never had original constituent powers. Thus, even if the Constituent Assembly had been in existence, it would have a limited role to play in abrogation of Article 370 as its decision would be only “recommendatory” in nature and the President could have taken any decision even if the Constituent Assembly did not agree to the same.
Appearances
For the petitioners- Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Zaffar Shah, Rajeev Dhavan, Dushyant Dave, Chander Uday Singh, Dinesh Dwivedi, Shekhar Naphade, Nitya Ramakrishnan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Menaka Guruswamy, Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sanjay Parikh and Advocate Warisha Farasat argued.
For the Union of India : Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee and Advocate Kanu Agarwal.
For the intervenors backing the Union – Senior Advocates Harish Salve, Rakesh Dwivedi, V Giri, Guru Krishnakumar; Advocates Archana Pathak Dave, VK Biju and Charu Mathur. (LiveLaw)

Related