Opposition, treasury benches lock horns in LA over J&K’s ‘special status’

Jammu, Feb 7: J&K Legislative Assembly on Saturday witnessed noisy scenes as the treasury and opposition benches locked horns over the expression ìspecial status of Jammu and Kashmirî and related terms.

Verbal clashes occurred as the members from treasury benches sought the restoration of ìspecial statusî of J&K ñ a term used to describe as Article 370 and 35A and the opposition benches (read BJP only) vociferously countered them saying that there was no such term in the Indian Constitution, with reference to J&K.

Uproar marked the proceedings when the general discussion on the budget for the year 2026-27 presented by the Chief Minister on February 6, 2026 commenced in the House.

Opening the debate, NC MLA from Baramulla Javid Hassan Baig in his address targeted the BJP for snatching Article 370, the constitutional link of J&K with the country.

ìThey took away J&Kís internal autonomy,î Baig said, while explaining in detail how J&K enjoyed internal autonomy and what defined its special status.

As he was vociferously seeking the restoration of ìspecial status of J&Kî, the Leader of Opposition Sunil Sharma raised a point of order.

ìDonít teach us about Article 370. There is no such expression called ëspecial statusí in the Indian Constitution, with reference to J&K,î the LOP raised his objection.

Irked by his statement, National Conference (NC) MLAs were up protesting his remarks.

Even Minister for Transport Satish Sharma joined the cause, as he said, ìThose who donít read history, cannot make it. They should not talk about it.î

Shabir Ahmad Kullay too joined the protesting NC MLAs. At this point, the Minister for Agriculture Javid Ahmad Dar intervened stating that the opposition members should not resort to disruption during the debate.

However, the BJP and NC membersí verbal duel continued amid sloganeering.

As BJP members raised the slogan ìJis Kashmir Ko Khoon Se Seencha Woh Kashmir Hamara HaiÖî, the treasury benches countered it with ìHindustan Zindabad.î

NCís Nazir Gurezi accused the BJP of putting the House on ransom and resorting to ìdramaî politics. Minister Javid Dar, MLAs Javid Baig, Mubarak Gul asked the BJP to accept that it eroded the special status of J&K.

Javid Baig alleged that the alienation in J&K happened because the past governments at the Centre weakened Article 370.

After a few moments, the order was restored in the House and the debate proceeded.

However, after some time, the disorder again returned to the House as independent MLA from Thannamandi Muzaffar Iqbal Khan, a retired judge, while participating in the debate, again raised special status issue and Article 370.

ìThey said it (Article 370) is buried. It is a phoenix. It will roar back to life again. We will get back our statehood and special status also,î Khan said, while giving a detailed account of Article 370 and 35 A. Tracing the background of Article 35 A, he referred to Maharajaís orders of 1925 and 1927 and said that it (Article 35 A) was for protection of land and jobs of J&K citizens. It was added through a presidential proclamation in 1950, Khan stated.

Criticising the BJP for ending the same (Art 370 and 35 A), he pointed out that many states were still enjoying special status, being objected to by the BJP for J&K, under Article 371.

ìWhy do you not raise your ìEk Nishan, Ö.î slogan in case of those states. We want our separate constitution and flag back. In fact, we want all states to have separate constitutions and flags,î Khan stated.

His statement was objected to by the BJP members. Majority of BJP members were protesting and demanding, ìNo state can have separate flags and constitution. His (Khanís) remark should be expunged.î

Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Choudhary rose to counter them, joined by other coalition members. Khan said, ìNo where in the constitution, it has been written that the states cannot have separate flags.î

BJP members kept on demanding expunging of remarks. In between the Deputy Chief Minister and Sham Sharma entered into a verbal duel.

Choudhary targeted Sham Sharma, S S Slathia and Pawan Gupta, saying, ìWhen you were ministers, you had no objection to the separate flag perched atop your vehicles. You should not have used it then.î

Pawan Gupta of BJP countered Khan saying that he (Khan) could not challenge the basic structure of the Constitution.

ìHis remarks should be expunged,î he, supported by his party colleagues, demanded from the chair.

As Mubarik Gul had replaced the Speaker A R Rather in the Chair, he ruled, ìIf any remark has hurt the opposition members , it will be expunged.î

However, his ruling was robustly opposed by all NC members led by the Deputy Chief Minister.

Then Gul said, ìHis ruling was conditional. Iíve not expunged the remarks.î

Sham Sharma registered his protest against the Chair, saying, ìDonít dilute your ruling.î

Gul then asked Khan to explain his context.

Khan said that many states had asked for a separate flag earlier and some like Nagaland were still seeking a separate constitution and flag.

This verbal duel continued for some time.

Later Gul pacified the BJP members stating that Khan was talking about pre pre-independence era, talking about the Maharaja’s time. During the debate, third time NC and BJP members clashed when BJP MLA Sunil Bhardwaj was speaking.

As he accused the NC government of projecting central projects as its achievements while money was being spent by the Centre, the NC Ministers – Deputy Chief Minister, Sakeena Itoo and Javid Dar joined by other NC members objected.

ìIf he is saying that MLAs have no role in the implementation of central projects like PMGSY or other schemes, he should place it on record, then there will be no need for consultations with the MLAs,î Sakeena said.

Later, speaking to media persons outside the J&K Legislature, Javid Baig said, ìThe Leader of Opposition had described that there was nothing called ìspecial statusî and it was just a sham. Even PDP leaders also used to say the same.î

ìBasically, they did not know the concept of special status. Article 370 used to define Centre-State relationship at the constitutional level while Article 35 A used to give protection to state subject laws in J&K, land and jobs. Besides there was internal autonomy where our own (J&K) constitution used to operate. We had a separate flag which used to symbolise the political struggle of the entire J&K ñ including Ladakh and parts, presently not with us. All these four things together used to be described as special status,î Baig said.

ìAnyway, this peaceful political struggle seeking restoration of special status will continue. As far as LoP is concerned, he does not represent the Government of India or the Parliament. We are seeking it from the Centre, from the Prime Minister,î he said.

Outside the House, the LOP, when asked by the media persons to comment on his remarks in the legislature, he said, ìAs far as I know or Iíve studied thereís nothing called ëspecial statusí in the Indian Constitution, with reference to Jammu and Kashmir. There is no ëspecial statusí word in terms of J&K accession and merger. When you make a constitutional demand, there should be a constitutional expression.î

ìThere are many states which seek special status, in terms of employment package or related package. It should not be linked to Article 370, which is a history. It has been buried. A NC legislator was raking up this issue in the Legislative Assembly. If they can prove its (term of special status) reference in terms of J&K in the Indian Constitution. Iím ready to face any punishment,î Sunil Sharma said.

He alleged that NC got votes from Kashmir by misleading people.

ìNow to legitimize that vote (verdict), they are looking for special status here. They are trying to befool people yet again. The Abdullah family kept cheating the people. Now when their failure in fulfilling promises made to daily wagers, unemployed youth, AAY, BPL and EWS categories, they are raking up the special status issue as a cover to deflect peopleís attention from their failure,î the LOP said.