question_answer

Describe the journey of the movement for Right to Information which ultimately culminated into an Act i.e. RTI Act, 2005.

Or

Describe the internal and external disputes responsible for making the politics of Jammu and Kashmir continuously controversial.

Answer:

Movement for Right to Information Act, 2005:

(i) The movement started in 1990 by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan he adopted the initiative in asking for records of famine relief work along with accounts of labourers.

(ii) The villagers asserted their right to information.

(iii) The movement had a small success when they could force an amendment in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act.

(iv) In 1966, MKSS formed National Council for People?s Right to Information in Delhi to raise RTI to the status of National Campaign.

(v) In 2002, a weak Freedom of Information Act was legislated but never came into force.

(vi) In 2004, RTI Bill was tabled and received Presidential assent in June 2005.

Or

External and Internal disputes:

Since, the politics of Jammu and Kashmir always remained controversial and conflict ridden both for external and internal reasons. Externally, Pakistan has always claimed that Kashmir valley should be part of Pakistan. As we noted above, Pakistan sponsored a tribal invasion of the State in 1947, as a consequence of which one part of the State came under Pakastani control. India claims that this area is under illegal occupation. Pakistan describes this area as Azad Kashmir". Ever since 1947 Kashmir has remained a major issue of conflict between India and Pakistan.

Internally, there is a dispute about the status of Kashmir within the Indian union. You know that Kashmir was given a special status by Article 370 and 371 last year in Indian Constitution at Work. Article 370 gives greater autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir compared to other States of India. The State has its own Constitution. All provisions of the Indian Constitution are not applicable to the State. Laws passed by the Parliament apply to J & K only if the State agrees.

This special status has provoked two opposite reactions. There is a section of people outside of J & K that believes that the special status of the State conferred by Article 370 does not allow full integration of the State with India. Another section, mostly Kashmiris, believe that the autonomy conferred by Article 370 is not enough. A section of Kashmiris has expressed at least three major grievances. First, the promise that Accession would be referred to the people of the State after the situation created by tribal invasion was normalised, has not been fulfilled. This has generated the demand for a ?Plebiscite7. Secondly, there is a feeling that the special federal status guaranteed by Article 370, has been eroded in practice. This has led to the demand for restoration of autonomy or ?Greater State Autonomy?. Thirdly, it is felt that democracy which is practiced in the rest of India has not been similarly institutionalized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.