SRINAGAR: In a pointed response to a privilege notice issued by the Speaker of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly, PDP MLA Waheed Ur Rehman has refuted allegations of misquoting fellow legislator Nazir Ahmad Khan (Gurezi) during a speech on November 8. Rehman characterised the notice as a baseless attempt to suppress dissent and distract from pressing issues, including the ongoing debate on Article 370 and the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir.
The controversy arose after Gurezi accused Rehman of falsely attributing remarks to him in which he allegedly referred to the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) as “traitors.” Waheed, in his detailed reply to the Speaker, denied any wrongdoing and argued that his remarks were factually grounded, citing verbatim transcripts from the Assembly proceedings to substantiate his case.
Waheed emphasised that his speech did not single out Gurezi but broadly referenced critical statements made by two ruling party legislators against the JEI and the PDP. He backed his claims with a transcript that, according to him, clearly shows Gurezi branding the JEI and the PDP as “traitors” involved in a conspiracy orchestrated by New Delhi to weaken the National Conference. Waheed accused Gurezi of denying his own recorded words and misleading the Assembly.
Waheed’s reply also invoked constitutional protections under Article 194, which grants legislators immunity for statements made during Assembly proceedings. He contended that the privilege motion against him lacked merit and did not meet the threshold for such action. Additionally, he argued that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) was fundamental to democracy and could not be curtailed through what he termed “baseless privilege motions.”
Waheed criticised the motion as an attempt to stifle the opposition’s voice in the Assembly and to avoid addressing substantive issues. “By weaponising privilege motions, the ruling party seeks to delegitimise opposition leaders who are raising critical questions about the future of Jammu and Kashmir,” he asserted.
In his response Waheed raised concerns about what he described as the ruling party’s divisive rhetoric, which he claimed marginalises political groups like the JEI and the PDP while monopolising the political discourse in the region. He accused the ruling National Conference of hypocrisy, pointing out its historical alliances with New Delhi, including its partnership with the Congress and the BJP at different times, and questioned the moral authority of the party to brand others as “traitors.”
Waheed argued that such accusations erase the complexities of Jammu and Kashmir’s political history and undermine the principles of political pluralism. “The National Conference’s attempts to vilify political rivals as conspirators or traitors threaten the very essence of democratic engagement and dialogue,” he said.
Waheed alleged that the privilege motion was politically motivated, aimed at silencing opposition voices that have been vocal about restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s special status under Article 370. He warned that such tactics, if unchecked, would set a dangerous precedent by eroding democratic accountability and transparency in the Assembly.
He urged the Speaker to dismiss the motion, emphasising the need to preserve the Assembly’s integrity and focus on critical issues affecting the region. “This motion serves only to distract us from the real issues that matter to the people we represent,” he concluded.
