Article 370

Is it the right time to discuss the relevance of Article 370? Will its removal lead to separation of J&K State from the Indian Union as is claimed by many experts?

How about entrusting the relevance and irrelevance of article 370 to the newly formed government ?

Is it the right time to discuss the relevance of Article 370? Will its removal lead to separation of J&K State from the Indian Union as is claimed by many experts?

No way repealment of Article 370 will have any imact on J&K. It is due to this article, the state is in controversy and has a special status to this state far different from other similar state of India. Due to this article many popular government policies are not applicable in this state such as reservation of SC and St and many shcemes, for this it is essential to remove this article and make J&K similar state as rest of India states.

Article 370 cannot be repealed without Constitutional amendment which has to follow after J&K Assembly passes a merger resolution by two thirds majority.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.

So far article 370 has benefitted only the Abdullah family and no one else, neither the Kashmiri Muslims nor Pandits have benefitted from it. So one really wonders whether it is really required. If the new PM has taken up its issue immediately upon his taking charge, there must be something in taking it off, after all!

Article 370 defines special status of j & K. But this is not basis of merger of the state with India. The treaty of accession signed by then Maharaja of J & K is the basis of accession to India. Now J & K is an integral part of India.

Let me refer to my article on the topic.

http://www.boddunan.com/articles/miscellaneous/51-general-reference/23202-relevance-of-article-370-granting-special-status-to-j-k.html

Article 370 defines special status of j & K. But this is not basis of merger of the state with India. The treaty of accession signed by then Maharaja of J & K is the basis of accession to India. Now J & K is an integral part of India.

Let me refer to my article on the topic.

http://www.boddunan.com/articles/miscellaneous/51-general-reference/23202-relevance-of-article-370-granting-special-status-to-j-k.html

Very true...like you have mentioned in your article, much water has flown from the river Jhelum since 1947, we are not living in those times, nor are the Kashmiris, so there is no need for article 370 and removing it will not supposedly pose threat of its removal from India. If anything, it will bring the state more closer to the rest of the country.

But the Maharaja signed the accession treaty with a number of conditions which the then Government of India including Sardar Patel accepted and these are enshrined in the Constitution. Sheikh Abdullah had nothing to do with it. The accession to India or Pakistan was solely to be decided by the Kings in their kingdoms. Pl do not blame Sheikh Abdullah as he was a forward looking politician and it was because of him that J&K did not opt for Pakistan. Subsequent mis-handling are giving a totally different picture than is real. It may surprise many to know that Kashmir is one of the States in India high on personal incomes, in spite of the troubles it is facing. The real villain is Pakistan and not Article 370. Fight Pakistan not 370. If you win then 370 will collapse automatically. But reverse will not be true/

Is it the right time to discuss the relevance of Article 370? Will its removal lead to separation of J&K State from the Indian Union as is claimed by many experts?

Article 370 was supposed to be a temporary measure and there have been changes made to it earlier...The so called experts who claim that J&K may get seperated ought to think that Kashmir has and will always be a part of India and comes under Indian government rule...anything else anyone else including Pakistanis say is immaterial...IF at all any concrete steps can be taken it would be Modi who has the capacity to do so, and I sincerely hope he goes ahead and does something abut it..

From a position of strength looks plausible, only time will tell.

The state of J & K is inseparable part of India owing to merger treaty and not article 370 of the constitution. Article 370 is internal matter. It is fallacious to say that article 370 is the basis of merger of the princely state of J & K.

I feel that many ignore the fact that Jammu & Kashmir does not mean only Kashmir. The people of Jammu region (Dogras), Ladakh (Ladakhi Budddhists) have also stake in the issue. Often you remember only Kashmir valley and ignore Jammu Division and Ladakh. I am sure that people of Jammu as well as Ladakh will like to repeal article 370. There could be dispute only in Kashmir. It is unfortunate that certain leaders of J & K speak as spokespersons of Kashmir only and forget that Jammu and Ladakh are also in the state.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!