Article 370 - OpenMeans

vijay

31 4.98k 28.3k

11 years ago

#376109

Yes the people of Jammu and Ladakh also must have a say. It is true that the Valley has dominated the issue. So far it is the latter who have been in the fore front. It is time other regions also got an equal opportunity.

Thank you said by: Gulshan Kumar Ajmani

Kalyani Nandurkar

258 14.6k 108.2k

11 years ago

#376111

This passage related to Article 370 is very interesting and revealing and points to vested interests of a handful few who do not want the article repealed.

B. R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution of India, was against Article 370 and it was included against his wishes. Balraj Madhok reportedly said, Dr. Ambedkar had clearly told Sheikh Abdullah, "You wish India should protect your borders, she should build roads in your area, she should supply you food grains, and Kashmir should get equal status as India. But Government of India should have only limited powers and Indian people should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this proposal, would be a treacherous thing against the interests of India and I, as the Law Minister of India, will never do it." Then Abdullah went to Nehru, who directed him to N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, who approached Sardar Patel asking him to do something as it was a matter of prestige for Nehru, who had promised Abdullah accordingly. Patel got it passed when Nehru was on a foreign tour. On the day this article came up for discussion, Dr. Ambedkar did not reply to questions on it though he did participate on other articles. All arguments were done by Krishna Swami Ayyangar

"I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally."
- W. C. Fields :)

Thank you said by: usha manohar

vijay

31 4.98k 28.3k

11 years ago

#376116

If true it does show that there was no unanimity on Article 370 even when it was being framed. However these days there is a school of thought which tries to lay blame on everything wrong on Nehru and show Patel and others in good light. When a team takes a decision, then individual members cannot later on disassociate from it to escape responsibility . Similarly vested interests will try to create a divide but the responsibility still remains. If those who are now sought to be portrayed as having kept quiet or cooperated under force had shown courage and resigned perhaps we would not be having this problem today. This is also a part of a new ideology taking hold.

Thank you said by: Gulshan Kumar Ajmani

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani

3.48k 21.9k 176.9k

11 years ago

#376134

Article 370 cannot be repealed without Constitutional amendment which has to follow after J&K Assembly passes a merger resolution by two thirds majority. The latter is not going to be esay and moves in this direction can lead to hardening of attitudes and increased militant activities in the Valley. But yes a discussion can be initiated.

According to the constitution of J & K, the assembly has no jurisdiction on matters that are in the jurisdiction of central government. Repeal of Article 370 is such matter. Hence no approval of state assembly is necessary to repeal the article. The procedure for repealing is given in the article itself. A mere notification by President by an executie order will suffice to repeal the article. This is not like constitutional amendment.

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

vijay

31 4.98k 28.3k

11 years ago

#376136

It is interesting what you are saying. But how does repealing 370 mean merger is complete. The terms of conditional merger still stand.The Maharaja is replaced by the Assembly just as the British were replaced by the Parliament. So any change in original terms has to have a two thirds majority support of J&k assembly , otherwise it is unilateral and can be resisted by Kashmiris. Is my interpretation correct, i wonder.

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani

3.48k 21.9k 176.9k

11 years ago

#376138

It is interesting what you are saying. But how does repealing 370 mean merger is complete. The terms of conditional merger still stand.The Maharaja is replaced by the Assembly just as the British were replaced by the Parliament. So any change in original terms has to have a two thirds majority support of J&k assembly , otherwise it is unilateral and can be resisted by Kashmiris. Is my interpretation correct, i wonder.

The article 370 has nothing to do with merger. Merger was already complete when Maharaja and Lord Mountbatten signed the treaty. Article 370 was introduced later and this simply defines the relation between Union and the state of J & K. Owing to special circumstances, more autonomy has been given to the state of J & K. Merger treaty makes J & K integral part of India. even the constitution of the state assembly says so. According to article 370, parliament cannot make law on matters within jurisdiction of state assembly and state assembly also has no jurisdiction on matters on which parliament has juridiction. Repeal of Article 370 is outside the jurisdiction of state assembly.

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

vijay

31 4.98k 28.3k

11 years ago

#376143

It is interesting what you are saying. But how does repealing 370 mean merger is complete. The terms of conditional merger still stand.The Maharaja is replaced by the Assembly just as the British were replaced by the Parliament. So any change in original terms has to have a two thirds majority support of J&k assembly , otherwise it is unilateral and can be resisted by Kashmiris. Is my interpretation correct, i wonder.

The article 370 has nothing to do with merger. Merger was already complete when Maharaja and Lord Mountbatten signed the treaty. Article 370 was introduced later and this simply defines the relation between Union and the state of J & K. Owing to special circumstances, more autonomy has been given to the state of J & K. Merger treaty makes J & K integral part of India. even the constitution of the state assembly says so. According to article 370, parliament cannot make law on matters within jurisdiction of state assembly and state assembly also has no jurisdiction on matters on which parliament has juridiction. Repeal of Article 370 is outside the jurisdiction of state assembly.

The merger was CONDITIONAL not total like other Indian kings did. This is the crux of the matter. That is why the state assembly has a role to play. There is no question of jurisdiction involved. Repeal w/o J&K assembly's involvement will be unilateral act by Indian government and break of terms of conditional merger. pl opine.

Suny Ag

253 20k 141.2k

11 years ago

#376145

I would not go into the legalities but JK will have to decide their priorities if they wish to further use Indian hospitality. The time has come they understood the ground reality.

I love this free image hosting site for sharing my work

https://o0.nz/

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani

3.48k 21.9k 176.9k

11 years ago

#376152

Now it is claimed that Jan Sangh leader Shyama Prasad Mukherjee avored Article 370. There was consensus. There is no doubt on this. But this was supposed to be transitional and temporary provison and that is why this is in that section. There is nothing wrong in debating this. The decision to retain this article on permanent basis or remove this can be taken after due deliberation.

The article 370 itself provides how the same can be repealed. The article can be repealed by President subject to approval of the constituent assembly (not state assembly of J & K.). There is no more constituent assembly. Hence the article can be repealed by notification only.

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/jana-sangh-founder-endorsed-article-370-national-conference-1549647.html

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

Kalyani Nandurkar

258 14.6k 108.2k

11 years ago

#376155

If true it does show that there was no unanimity on Article 370 even when it was being framed. However these days there is a school of thought which tries to lay blame on everything wrong on Nehru and show Patel and others in good light. When a team takes a decision, then individual members cannot later on disassociate from it to escape responsibility . Similarly vested interests will try to create a divide but the responsibility still remains. If those who are now sought to be portrayed as having kept quiet or cooperated under force had shown courage and resigned perhaps we would not be having this problem today. This is also a part of a new ideology taking hold.

The school of thought you are alluding to, of blaming Nehru Gandhi family for everything might be a current trend but it is hardly wrong. Where the question of article 370 and circumstances around its formation are concerned, one can hardly ignore the fact that Nehru was hellbent on pleasing Sheikh Abdullah with respect to Kashmir rather than any one else, an occurrence we have off and on again and again So ideology or not, it is the truth!

"I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally."
- W. C. Fields :)

Title	Category	Replies
DEAL WITH IT	Discussions	0
WHY READ PHILOSOPHY	Education & Learning	0
What impact does ecommerce SEO create for your business?	General Discussions	0
Storms in Your Life	Discussions	0
Me and my polar opposites hobbies	Introduce Yourself	0

Forum Categories

Trending Topics