NPP Supremo calls secular, democratic & nationalist J&K political parties to sit around a table

Jammu, June 16, 2021: Prof.Bhim Singh, President, J&K National Panthers Party (JKNPP) & Sr. Advocate, Supreme Court of India has given a sincere and open invitation to the leadership of all nationalist, secular & democratic political parties in J&K to sit around a table somewhere in J&K and decide as to what needs to be done to save history, geography, cultural identity of all regions of the state including J&K and Ladakh as well as Gilgit-Baltistan and other areas under Chinese illegal occupation in Ladakh sector with all its identity as a part of Union Territory of India in its original capacity as a State of the Union.

Prof.Bhim Singh has conveyed a message to the leadership of National Conference, PDP and the leadership of some national parties which are active in J&K in a straight way that we must sit together, talk together and save the J&K with its history, cultural and linguistic identity the way it acceded to the Union of India on October 26, 1947 after the Accession was signed Maharaja Hari Singh which was approved on October 27, 1947 by the then Governor-General Lord Mountbatten.

Prof.Bhim Singh raised this question before all Members of the Parliament, the judicial persons as well as the historians and thinkers as to;

i).      Why J&K which had acceded to the Union of India and its accession was accepted by the then Governor-General of India not made as a State was not united with the Union of India on January 26, 1950?

ii).     All the 575 princes and heads of the states were relieved of their titles but the Ruler of J&K was not touched? Maharaja of J&K continued as Maharaja, Ruler of J&K even after January 26, 1950, why so and under what Law?

iii).    Another question that needs to be answered by the entire Parliament of India which passed a Resolution claiming that the Parliament has removed Article 370 from the stomach of the Indian Constitution, that, what authority under the Constitution of India could have allowed the Parliament to remove all the provisions in Clause 3 of Article 370 which had clearly stated that, “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify: Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.”

a).      Was this procedure and command of law expressly mentioned in Article 370 (3) applied by the Govt. of India or even by Hon’ble President of India?

b).     I, said Prof.Bhim Singh, would like to raise this question to be answered whether Parliament had any absolute power to abrogate Article 370 in all?

iv).    There are very questionable decisions taken by the Govt. of India which violate the provisions mentioned in Article 370 itself in the Constitution of India which needs to be answered by the Govt. of India?

          Prof.Bhim Singh challenged the entire leadership of the country including lawyers, men from the judiciary or history to stand face to face with this ordinary students of law and answer these questions including the one with India may face before the International Court of Justice someday–has Indian government or Indian Parliament any power to abrogate/amend/ change or destroy any provision in the Instrument of Accession signed by Ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh? The Instrument of Accession vis-à-vis Jammu and Kashmir was never changed, deleted, removed by the Constituent Assembly. It was the only Constituent Assembly which had constitutional authority to change, amend or remove any provision in the Constituent Assembly signed by Maharaja Hari Singh and approved by the then Governor-General of India Lord Mountbatten.

As a student of law, I, Bhim Singh said, “I as a humble student of Law who hold authority of International Court of Justice in Hague, raising the above questions to the parliamentarians, thinkers of International Law and all to kindly correct me if the issues raised by me have any meaning”.