While as the government is an institution meant to ensure smooth saili by trying to erase social disparities, overcome economic dichotomies and smoothen political discourses, the coalition governments in J&K State over the last few years have mastered the artless and heartless manufacturing of controversies-one after another. Getting into the nitty gritty of these controversies, from Shri Amaranth ji land row to Dogra certification, it could safely be concluded that the controversies were avoidable. Whereas the pros and cons of a developing move could be assessed by thorough discussion at decision making levels, an arbitrary course became the norm. There has to be a bureaucratic input entailing situation reports, outlining the relevant laws, the administrative implications. That done, it is put up to political executive for assessing the political implications, and whether or not the legislative vetting is needed, then only the final call is taken. A bird’s eye view of recent controversies makes it clear that ladder to be followed for going up the decision making process was sidetracked, a circuitous route adopted; hence the fall-time and again, in one needless move after another by one thoughtless coalition after another! The latest in the series is Dogra certification row. Revenue Ministry sources make it out to be a benign move, as made out in Government Order No. Rev. (LB) 69 of 2011 dated: 25-03-2011. Revenue Minister Raman Balla explains “All such residents of Jammu and Kashmir, who are otherwise eligible for grant of Permanent Resident Certificate in terms of J&K Grant of Permanent Resident Certificate (Procedure) Act and the rules made thereon, can get the certificate.” The minister said that the concerned Tehsildar (Territorial) shall be competent to issue such certificate to the eligible/desirous persons “irrespective of his or her ethnicity, religion, cultural background and mother-tongue.” For the purpose of issuing the Dogra certificate, all residents of Jammu division irrespective of ethnicity, cultural background and mother tongue should be classified as Dogras, provided their forefathers were residents of Jammu Division prior to 1944,” the Minister added while quoting the procedure set by the government. “However the cut-off date of 1944 shall not apply to displaced persons of Pakistan administered Kashmir (PaK) who will also be eligible for Dogra certificate,” [GK: 5/4/2011].Advocate General, Muhammad Ishaq Qadri calls it an administrative decision and not the one meant to devise policy. “It is the policy decisions which go to the cabinet. Policies are to be framed by a department and approved by the cabinet. Since it is not a policy decision but an administrative decision, it hasn’t gone beyond the level of the minister,” Qadri reportedly told Greater Kashmir [GK: 5/4/2011]. Advocate General’s take may be assessed in the light of how the [Clause: 9] pertaining to ‘Special provisions for Bills relating to permanent residents’ of ‘PART III’ of the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir defining ‘permanent residents’ reads: defining or altering the definition of the classes of persons who are, or shall be, permanent residents of the state; conferring on permanent residents any special rights or privileges; regulating or modifying any special rights or privileges enjoyed by permanent residents;shall be deemed to be passed by either House of the Legislature only if it is passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total membership of that House. e are told that while Er.Rashid-MLA Langate raised the issue recently in the State Assembly seeking clarification from the government, no other legislator stood up in his support, though a number of them later reacted sharply to the issue. [GK: 6/4/2011]. In the face of Rashid’s assertion, Muzaffar Hussain Baig’s statement “I wonder how Assembly has maintained silence over the issue,” appears surprising. In case the MLA Langate is right in his claim, one wonders, how did Baig and his party let it off-an issue of such importance. Baig did however react later, calling it “violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian constitution. And even in the state constitution, there is no provision for Dogra Certificates.” Article 14, Baig said, makes it clear that the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 says that shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State [GK: 6/4/2011]. Baig a leading advocate might have an axe to grind in opposing the move, being a prominent opposition legislator, however his opinion stands within legal parameters and sounds logical. We may also take into view how the legal icon Zaffar Shah sees it as `an indirect method of empowering these people and confer them with certain rights as Army personnel.' Zaffar Shah’s take seems to fall in sub clauses [a, b, c] of [clause: 9] of altering the definition, conferring special rights and regulating or modifying special rights and privileges; hence liable to legislative approval. The Indian Army spokesman has put it completely differently from how it was projected in official circles.  Army’s Srinagar-based spokesman Colonel JS Brar has been quoted in the press as saying that the “Army does the recruitment, in a particular regiment, on the basis of catchment area. The catchment area for Dogra Regiment is south of Pir Panchal range, Himachal Pradesh and two belts of Punjab—Gurdaspur and Hoshiarpur.” Brar said: “A person who is found fit in all respects like basic educational qualification and physical, written and medical tests, and who makes it to the merit list, is taken into Dogra regiment, as is the case with other regiments,” [GK: 6/4/2011]. This goes on to prove that a ‘Dogra Certificate’ might not be the pre-requisite for recruitment.A day later, on 7/4/2011, GK carried J&K government’s effort to play it down, quoting a KNS [local news agency] report, which might in fact fuel the controversy rather than cool it. Stiffening the spine, it meant to convey ‘the decision on issuance of Dogra Certificate won’t be revoked at any cost’ however the readiness was conveyed ‘to issue similar certificates to other communities in the state’. Revenue Minister Raman Balla, flanked by Deputy Chief Minister Tara Chand, said: “If Kashmiris want Kashmiri certificate, people of Rajouri and Poonch demand Rajput certificate and Ladakhis demand Ladakhi certificate, we would provide them the same. Let them come forward and we will consider their case also.” The statement compounds the misery; this seems like being a comedy of tragedies. There are a few pertinent questions-how do people of Rajouri and Poonch become Rajputs overnight, while as they were classified as Dogras in Revenue Minister’s earlier order “all residents of Jammu division irrespective of ethnicity, cultural background and mother tongue should be classified as Dogras.” Or, does the minister mean to say that Dogras and Rajputs are ethnically same? Coming to Jammu division, the minister also needs to clear, whether Kashmiri speaking people in Chenab Basin are ethnically Dogras? There are many Kashmiris of Rajput origin, as per old historical chronicles-do they qualify for a Rajput or a Kashmiri certificate?  State Subject Certificate on scrutiny is a comprehensive one. The document mentions issuance under Act No XIII of 1963 and Performa is classified as: Form ‘A’ (See Rule 4) and carries name of the person, parentage, residence notifies Tehsil as well as the District. If Col. Brar labels Dogra catchment area as being “south of Pir Panchal range, Himachal Pradesh and two belts of Punjab—Gurdaspur and Hoshiarpur,” one wonders, where is the need of a separate certificate, as the state subject carries the desired particulars to perfection.In another somersault, GK of 08.04.2011 carried another front page report on the subject-an amplification of original order dated 25-3-2011, marking out the eligible ones as those “who are desirous of seeking employment and otherwise eligible for such employment in central paramilitary forces, wherever relaxation in height and chest measurements is permissible under the recruitment rules and (wherever) such a certificate is pre-requisite.” It carries a clarification on validity ‘valid only for employment in central paramilitary forces.’ The state subject certificate, we may note, mentions the height.The state government would do well without raking up needless controversies with amazing regularity, more so controversies which raise a question mark on the unity of state by needlessly categorizing the people hebetating it. On the contrary, the government needs to provide muscle to its plea for peaceful summer-the abiding desire of all well meaning citizens!
Yaar Zinda, Sohbat Baqi [Reunion is subordinate to survival]
(Feedback at iqbal.javid46@gmail.com)

Lastupdate on : Sat, 9 Apr 2011 21:30:00 Makkah time
Lastupdate on : Sat, 9 Apr 2011 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:00:00 IST