Centre's Contempt For Federalism Is Evident From Treatment By Police Of J&K Chief Minister
One day after the 'locking down' of the Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir Omar Abdullah, his cabinet ministers, his party National Conference legislators, along with leader from the PDP, People's Conference, and J&K Apni Party in their homes to prevent them from paying homage to Martyrs of July 13, 1931 on that day, yet another serious incident took place that amounts to attack on democracy. The chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir was manhandled by Central security forces when he, along with others went to pay homage to martyrs at Naqshband Sahib graveyard in the Old City of Srinagar.
The martyrs' graveyard was heavily barricaded by the Central security forces. Nevertheless, in a defiant step, leaders of the national conference paid floor tribute at the martyrs' graveyard. CM Omar Abdullah jumped a barricade, scaled the wall, and entered graveyard, followed by other leaders of his party. The graveyard contains dead bodies of 22 Kashmiris who were killed on July 13, 1931.
'These people think that we are their slaves. We are not their slaves; we are the servants of the people of Jammu and Kashmir,' Omar told reporters at the site, adding that attempts were made to block their movement. 'Which law allows them to stop elected representatives from paying tribute to martyrs? Is this democracy or dictatorship?' he questioned, asserting 'they tried to physically grapple me but I was not going to be stopped.' National Conference later posted on X, 'No restrictions can silence us; our democratic rights will prevail. We forever honour the July 13, 1931, martyrs who rose against tyranny.'Omar has also remarked, 'Unelected nominees of New Delhi locked up the elected representatives of the people of J&K.'
The question is why the Centre has denied permission to the people of Kashmir to pay homage to their martyrs? Until 2019, July 13 was officially observed as Martyrs' Day in Jammu and Kashmir in memory of the 22 civilians killed by Dogra forces under Maharaja Hari Singh's rule in 1931. It was also a holiday in the state.
PM Narendra Modi led government at the Centre had abrogated the Article 370 in August 2019, annulled its special status, ended its statehood, and split it into two Union Territories – Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Subsequently, the UT was put under administration of Lieutenant Governor, who in 2020, removed the Martyrs' Day from the list of gazetted holidays.
Elections to the Assembly of the UT was held in September-October 2024, which was won by the INDIA bloc led by National Conference. Omar Abdullah became chief minister, but the state practically remains under the Central administration under Lieutenant Governor. Administration had denied permission to all political parties to visit the graveyard or hold gatherings there, citing security concerns.
Nevertheless, the real concern is the fear of the Centre that giving permission may strengthened the movement of the Kashmiris who are still demanding for restoration of statehood and special status of the state as it existed before abrogation of Article 370, and also restoration of the Article 370 of the Constitution of India which gave it the special status.
The administration had denied permission for the Martyrs' Day function and warned of strict action against anyone who tried to proceed towards the Martyrs' Graveyard. Condemning this, Mr Abdullah said, '13th July massacre is our Jallianwala Bagh. The people who laid down their lives did so against the British. Kashmir was being ruled under the British Paramountcy. What a shame that true heroes who fought against British rule in all its forms are today projected as villains only because they were Muslims. We may be denied the opportunity to visit their graves today, but we will not forget their sacrifices.'
The action of the Central administration against an elected chief minister of Jammu & Kashmir has been generally criticized by leaders and people across the country.
Opposing the 'house arrest' of Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin on Monday contended that the Union government led by BJP was systematically stripping away the rights of elected State governments. He wrote in a social media post, 'At a time when there is a growing demand for the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir's Statehood, the current events unfolding there are a grim reminder of how far things have deteriorated.'
It was not just about one State or one leader, Mr. Stalin said, 'From Tamil Nadu to Kashmir, the Union BJP Government is systematically stripping away the rights of elected State governments.'If this could happen in Kashmir 'it can happen anywhere, to any elected representative of the people. Every democratic voice must unequivocally condemn this.'
Expressing shock, West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee has said that what happened to J&K chief minister is unacceptable.'What is wrong in visiting the graveyard of martyrs? This is not only unfortunate, it also snatches the democratic right of a citizen. What happened this morning to an elected chief minister is unacceptable. Shocking. Shameful,' she wrote on social media post.
PDP has said, 'When the elected CM, in manhandled by police, it's not just an insult to one individual, it's brutal assault on the very ideal of democracy in J&K. This wasn't a push, it was a deliberate humiliation of an elected government. The self-respect of the CM, his cabinet, and the mandate of the people has been crushed under the boots of a police state, acting on orders from those who treat J&K like a colony, not a constitutional unit.'
RJD leader Tejashvi Yadav said, 'The manner in which the elected CM was ill-treated and manhandled, is an utterly deplorable act and is a blot on Indian democracy. The BJP should remember that they have been outrightly rejected by the people of J&K. They should desist from ruling the state and dictating the elected government through backdoor.'
Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav said, 'If you keep imposing restrictions on every matter like this, then when the regime changes, tell me yourself, which border will you cross to escape?'
CPI leader D Raja condemned Abdullah's detention as insulting. And the J&K Congress called it a 'chilling reminder of how far we've drifted from democratic values'.
Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate said, 'It is reprehensible that the unelected police and unelected administration of Delhi are trying to control an elected Chief Minister. Elected leaders are being put under house arrest… The LG of J&K has accepted that he is taking responsibility for the Pahalgam attack… If he is taking responsibility to save Delhi, to become its shield, then resign… .' (IPA Service)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
3 days ago
- Arabian Post
Centre's Contempt For Federalism Is Evident From Treatment By Police Of J&K Chief Minister
By Dr. Gyan Pathak One day after the 'locking down' of the Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir Omar Abdullah, his cabinet ministers, his party National Conference legislators, along with leader from the PDP, People's Conference, and J&K Apni Party in their homes to prevent them from paying homage to Martyrs of July 13, 1931 on that day, yet another serious incident took place that amounts to attack on democracy. The chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir was manhandled by Central security forces when he, along with others went to pay homage to martyrs at Naqshband Sahib graveyard in the Old City of Srinagar. The martyrs' graveyard was heavily barricaded by the Central security forces. Nevertheless, in a defiant step, leaders of the national conference paid floor tribute at the martyrs' graveyard. CM Omar Abdullah jumped a barricade, scaled the wall, and entered graveyard, followed by other leaders of his party. The graveyard contains dead bodies of 22 Kashmiris who were killed on July 13, 1931. 'These people think that we are their slaves. We are not their slaves; we are the servants of the people of Jammu and Kashmir,' Omar told reporters at the site, adding that attempts were made to block their movement. 'Which law allows them to stop elected representatives from paying tribute to martyrs? Is this democracy or dictatorship?' he questioned, asserting 'they tried to physically grapple me but I was not going to be stopped.' National Conference later posted on X, 'No restrictions can silence us; our democratic rights will prevail. We forever honour the July 13, 1931, martyrs who rose against tyranny.'Omar has also remarked, 'Unelected nominees of New Delhi locked up the elected representatives of the people of J&K.' The question is why the Centre has denied permission to the people of Kashmir to pay homage to their martyrs? Until 2019, July 13 was officially observed as Martyrs' Day in Jammu and Kashmir in memory of the 22 civilians killed by Dogra forces under Maharaja Hari Singh's rule in 1931. It was also a holiday in the state. PM Narendra Modi led government at the Centre had abrogated the Article 370 in August 2019, annulled its special status, ended its statehood, and split it into two Union Territories – Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Subsequently, the UT was put under administration of Lieutenant Governor, who in 2020, removed the Martyrs' Day from the list of gazetted holidays. Elections to the Assembly of the UT was held in September-October 2024, which was won by the INDIA bloc led by National Conference. Omar Abdullah became chief minister, but the state practically remains under the Central administration under Lieutenant Governor. Administration had denied permission to all political parties to visit the graveyard or hold gatherings there, citing security concerns. Nevertheless, the real concern is the fear of the Centre that giving permission may strengthened the movement of the Kashmiris who are still demanding for restoration of statehood and special status of the state as it existed before abrogation of Article 370, and also restoration of the Article 370 of the Constitution of India which gave it the special status. The administration had denied permission for the Martyrs' Day function and warned of strict action against anyone who tried to proceed towards the Martyrs' Graveyard. Condemning this, Mr Abdullah said, '13th July massacre is our Jallianwala Bagh. The people who laid down their lives did so against the British. Kashmir was being ruled under the British Paramountcy. What a shame that true heroes who fought against British rule in all its forms are today projected as villains only because they were Muslims. We may be denied the opportunity to visit their graves today, but we will not forget their sacrifices.' The action of the Central administration against an elected chief minister of Jammu & Kashmir has been generally criticized by leaders and people across the country. Opposing the 'house arrest' of Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin on Monday contended that the Union government led by BJP was systematically stripping away the rights of elected State governments. He wrote in a social media post, 'At a time when there is a growing demand for the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir's Statehood, the current events unfolding there are a grim reminder of how far things have deteriorated.' It was not just about one State or one leader, Mr. Stalin said, 'From Tamil Nadu to Kashmir, the Union BJP Government is systematically stripping away the rights of elected State governments.'If this could happen in Kashmir 'it can happen anywhere, to any elected representative of the people. Every democratic voice must unequivocally condemn this.' Expressing shock, West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee has said that what happened to J&K chief minister is unacceptable.'What is wrong in visiting the graveyard of martyrs? This is not only unfortunate, it also snatches the democratic right of a citizen. What happened this morning to an elected chief minister is unacceptable. Shocking. Shameful,' she wrote on social media post. PDP has said, 'When the elected CM, in manhandled by police, it's not just an insult to one individual, it's brutal assault on the very ideal of democracy in J&K. This wasn't a push, it was a deliberate humiliation of an elected government. The self-respect of the CM, his cabinet, and the mandate of the people has been crushed under the boots of a police state, acting on orders from those who treat J&K like a colony, not a constitutional unit.' RJD leader Tejashvi Yadav said, 'The manner in which the elected CM was ill-treated and manhandled, is an utterly deplorable act and is a blot on Indian democracy. The BJP should remember that they have been outrightly rejected by the people of J&K. They should desist from ruling the state and dictating the elected government through backdoor.' Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav said, 'If you keep imposing restrictions on every matter like this, then when the regime changes, tell me yourself, which border will you cross to escape?' CPI leader D Raja condemned Abdullah's detention as insulting. And the J&K Congress called it a 'chilling reminder of how far we've drifted from democratic values'. Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate said, 'It is reprehensible that the unelected police and unelected administration of Delhi are trying to control an elected Chief Minister. Elected leaders are being put under house arrest… The LG of J&K has accepted that he is taking responsibility for the Pahalgam attack… If he is taking responsibility to save Delhi, to become its shield, then resign… .' (IPA Service)
Arabian Post
29-06-2025
- Arabian Post
CJI's Weighty Contribution To Constitution Versus Parliament Debate
By K Raveendran When Chief Justice B R Gavai stated the other day that the Constitution is supreme and all arms of governance come under it, it may have seemed like a routine assertion at a felicitation event in his hometown, but in India's current political atmosphere, it was anything but routine. It was a subtle yet firm reminder that in a functioning democracy, the foundational text remains the final arbiter. That such a pronouncement had to be made at all speaks volumes about the ongoing tension between constitutional principles and legislative ambition in the country today. At a time when the government appears to view the Constitution with a degree of suspicion, the increasing frequency of confrontations between legislative actions and constitutional boundaries has elevated these tensions into a full-blown national concern. This assertion by the Chief Justice does not arise in a vacuum. It comes in the wake of an unmistakable pattern where the legislature seems to test the elasticity of the Constitution, pushing to see how far the law can be bent or bypassed in the name of political expediency, majoritarian impulses, or administrative convenience. Judicial review, once regarded as a healthy institutional checkpoint, is increasingly seen by some political actors as an unwelcome hurdle. The executive's overt irritation with judicial scrutiny, especially in matters like electoral bonds, appointments, civil liberties, and legislative processes, makes Justice Gavai's message more timely than ever. His reassertion of the Constitution's supremacy reminds the country—and its lawmakers—that power, no matter how democratically conferred, is still subject to constitutional restraint. That the Chief Justice also invoked the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution—established by the landmark Keshavananda Bharati judgment—is particularly telling. This doctrine has been the single greatest check on untrammelled parliamentary power since it was articulated in 1973. It says, quite simply, that while Parliament may amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. This includes principles like the separation of powers, the rule of law, judicial independence, federalism, and secularism. In recent times, this principle has come under increasing strain as amendments and legislative changes raise questions about whether the government is acting within its limits or seeking to undermine these foundational tenets. The Keshavananda Bharati judgment itself was born in an era not entirely dissimilar to today's: a period marked by growing centralisation of power and executive assertion. Then too, the judiciary had to assert its authority and underline that constitutional supremacy cannot be ceded to electoral majorities, however large. Today's context mirrors that history with unsettling clarity. Whether it is the dilution of Article 370, the passage of laws without adequate parliamentary debate, or attempts to control or influence independent institutions, the sense is growing that the legislative arm is not merely functioning within the Constitution but trying to bend it to its will. In this environment, the judiciary's role as the guardian of the Constitution becomes both more critical and more perilous. That danger is compounded by the way in which judicial pronouncements themselves are increasingly politicised. Rulings are no longer just legal interpretations; they are treated as ideological statements, drawing praise or censure depending on who perceives themselves to be advantaged or threatened by the outcome. This adds further pressure on the judiciary to walk a narrow line—delivering justice, maintaining institutional independence, and yet somehow surviving in a politically charged arena. Chief Justice Gavai's remarks are thus not only a reminder to the legislature but a quiet reassurance to the judiciary itself, a reaffirmation of its constitutional mandate in the face of unrelenting scrutiny and political targeting. More broadly, the tension between legislature and Constitution is a symptom of a deeper issue: the shrinking space for constitutional morality in political discourse. Laws are passed not because they reflect constitutional ideals but because they serve short-term political goals. The Constitution is often reduced to a procedural tool—something to be followed only in form, not in spirit. Institutions are reshaped, rules are tweaked, and legal language is weaponised not to protect citizens but to control them. This erosion of constitutional fidelity is not a legal problem alone—it is a democratic crisis. In such times, it is not only judges and lawyers who must defend the Constitution, but the citizenry itself. The challenge is compounded by the fact that the Constitution, for all its majesty, cannot enforce itself. It relies on the integrity of those in office, the strength of institutions, and the vigilance of the people. When a government begins to view the Constitution as a set of negotiable guidelines rather than binding principles, every institutional safeguard becomes essential. That is why the CJI's emphasis on the basic structure doctrine is so crucial: it is one of the few judicial tools that has historically withstood executive overreach. It is not a political doctrine—it is a democratic one, rooted in the idea that certain principles cannot be altered even by overwhelming majorities. In an age where popular mandates are used to justify sweeping changes, the basic structure doctrine insists that some things must remain untouched, no matter how persuasive the majority. This is the essence of constitutionalism: the idea that a democracy is not merely the rule of the majority, but the rule of law. It is a system where rights exist even when they are inconvenient to those in power, and where institutions are meant to withstand the whims of temporary governments. That is why the legislature's ambitions must always be tethered to constitutional limits. All governments are temporary; Constitution is permanent. To be clear, this does not imply that Parliament has no authority or that judicial review should obstruct governance. But in any democratic setup, there is a balance to be maintained. The legislature must legislate, the executive must implement, and the judiciary must interpret. When one branch begins to assume supremacy, the balance breaks down. The Constitution was designed precisely to prevent such a breakdown. That is why the Indian judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has historically played an activist role—not out of hubris, but out of necessity. Whether it was striking down the emergency-era amendments or upholding individual freedoms against state excess, the Court has repeatedly acted as the final line of defence. This line is now being tested again. The increasing pressure on institutions, the blurring of lines between party and government, and the aggressive majoritarianism of contemporary politics have all combined to make the judiciary's task harder. It is no longer just about interpreting the law; it is about preserving the democratic ethos of the Constitution itself. CJI Gavai's statement, therefore, should not be seen as mere legalism. It is a signal—a quiet but firm assertion that even in these fraught times, the Constitution endures, and so does the duty to uphold it. (IPA Service)
Zawya
25-06-2025
- Zawya
Various personalities from the Amandla Institute and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) reflect on 50 years of existence of the regional organisation
Reflection on the fiftieth anniversary of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is the focus of a conference opening on Tuesday 24th of June 2025 in Abuja, Nigeria. Initiated by the Amandla Institute and the ECOWAS Commission, this two-day meeting is a valuable opportunity for participants to discuss the achievements, challenges and prospects of the West African organisation. It is also an opportunity to take stock of the progress made by ECOWAS, to reflect on strengthening cooperation between its member states and to explore new strategies for promoting economic development, regional integration and stability in West Africa. It is also a key moment to measure the impact of ECOWAS on the lives of West African citizens and to consider the next steps to be taken by the regional organisation. The various speakers at the opening ceremony highlighted the major steps taken by ECOWAS to become one of the leading institutions for cooperation and integration in Africa. For the former Governor of Ekiti State, Nigeria, and co-founder of the Amandla Institute, Dr J. Kayode Fayemi, despite internal and external challenges, including funding problems, ECOWAS has achieved admirable growth and consolidation over the 50 years of its existence. 'Indeed, ECOWAS has long been the engine of African regional integration, representing a model from which others continue to draw inspiration,' said Dr J. Kayode Fayemi. For his part, the President of the ECOWAS Commission, H.E Dr Omar Alieu Touray, called for an in-depth reflection on the five decades of the regional organisation, the trials and successes of its journey towards integration, and the way forward in a rapidly changing world. He recalled some of the challenges facing ECOWAS today, namely the withdrawal of three of its member states, the intensification of insecurity in the Sahel and the emergence of geopolitical rivalries in West Africa. He informed participants of the organisation of a summit on the future of West Africa, which will provide an opportunity for a series of reflections on various themes, in order to discuss issues likely to hinder or accelerate the efforts of all parties towards the realisation of ECOWAS Vision 2050. For H.E Dr Omar Alieu Touray, this conference fits in perfectly with the summit agenda, and is a reminder that at the heart of the regional integration programme, the people of West Africa, in all their diversity, can shape a common destiny anchored in peace, prosperity and mutual respect. 'Let this conference serve as a compass, not only to remember, but also to renew. May our dialogue be bold, thoughtful and, above all, useful. May this meeting inspire us to renew our commitment to the enduring ideals of ECOWAS and the hope of a more united and resilient West Africa', said H.E Dr Omar Alieu Touray. Among the participants at this meeting was the former Nigerian President and one of the founding fathers of ECOWAS, General Yakubu Gowon. He gave an overview of the conditions and circumstances that led to the signing, on the 28th of May 1975, of the Treaty of Lagos establishing ECOWAS. He also recalled the key role played by eminent West African personalities in the creation of the regional organisation, starting with its co-founder, the Togolese president at the time, the late General Gnassingbé Eyadéma. 'The ambition of ECOWAS is to strengthen cooperation between its member states, promote regional integration and stimulate economic growth,' said General Yakubu Gowon. The meeting has in attendance former Executive Secretaries and Presidents of the ECOWAS Commission, including Dr Lansana Kouyaté and Kadré Désiré Ouédraogo. Other personalities taking part in the conference include Professor Abdoulaye Bathily of Senegal, the former President of Sierra Leone, Dr Ernest Bai Koroma, the Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security of the ECOWAS Commission, Ambassador Abdel-Fatau Musah, and the Director of Cabinet of the President of the Commission, Abdou Kolley. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
