Quick Facts:
1. More than 7 lakh military personnel are
generally deployed in Kashmir. 10000 more were added on 5th August 2019.
2. More than 41000 deaths have taken place in 27 years – the anatomy
of Kashmir militancy in numbers; that is an average of 4 deaths a day.
3. On 28th June 2019, the Minister of Home Affairs, Amit Shah stated that the PM Modi’s led Central Government has taken a zero-tolerance
policy to curb terrorism in the valley following which he proposed to abolish Article 370 as a temporary provision in the Lok Sabha.
4. On 5th August 2019, Article 370 was abrogated.
Historical
background of the story:
Post-independence, there were 3 provinces (Kashmir,
Hyderabad and Junagadh) that were problematic for the then Minister of Home
Affairs, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel as it was difficult to get them on board for
a secular, united India. Out of these provinces, Patel was not very interested in
Kashmir because of the fact that it had 80% Muslim population.
Hari Singh, the then Maharaja of Kashmir was not
very happy about the Jawaharlal Nehru – Sheikh Abdullah (then Chief Minister of
Kashmir) friendship as he feared that if Kashmir becomes a part of India, Nehru
might put it under the leadership of Abdullah; but being a Hindu king he did
not want to join Pakistan as well. Hence, he wanted an independent Kashmir. Thus,
he put forth a stand-still agreement to both nations for allowing no change in
the ongoing agreements until a future for Kashmir has been decided. Pakistan
signed the agreement but India asked for a negotiation.
Meanwhile, Pakistan waged a sudden attack on Kashmir.
Maharaja Hari Singh asked for help from India. India agreed to help Kashmir but
with a condition; this led to the signing of the Instrument of Accession
– which joined Kashmir with India.
This matter went to the United Nations (UN);
which then led to the UN decision, asking Pakistan to withdraw their troops and
India to have minimal army presence in Kashmir until the valley situation is stabilized.
And once the situation settles, Kashmiri people will be able to decide their political
future with a referendum. Thus, Article 370 was formed and since then the
situation of Kashmir has not improved because of which the people never got the
opportunity to execute the referendum. This also led to the formation of POK (Pakistan
Occupied Kashmir).
Article 370 was a ‘temporary provision’, its purpose
was to join/link the Kashmiri constitution and the Indian constitution.
Till 1965 Kashmir elected its own PMs.
The union list has 97 subjects for which
parliament makes laws, out of which 94 such are applicable to Kashmir, these 94
were added over a period of time by making amendments to Article 370. Not just
that, out of the 390 Articles, 260 are applicable in Kashmir – so the question
is where is the autonomy of Kashmir which they asked for?
Article 370
and 35 A:
Key points:
- Separate
constitution and separate flag.
- Dual
citizenship (to Kashmir and India).
- The
Indian Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in J&K. In other words, the law
and order of the Indian Supreme court were not applicable in J&K.
-
Indian
parliament had limited rights to make any laws for J&K.
- The
Indian central government had powers for taking decisions related to only
external affairs, defense and communication.
- In
1954 article 35 A was included in the constitution of India by the then president,
Rajendra Prasad.
- According
to this article people termed or identified as permanent residents of the state
will only be the people residing in Kashmir on or before 14th May,
1954 or people residing in Kashmir, 10 years prior to this date and who have
acquired any property in the state.
- Land,
property, government jobs, scholarship, voting rights, are entitled to Kashmiris
only.
-
35
A gives Kashmir the provision to define their permanent residents. In simple
terms, no one can make use of the state resources of Kashmir, apart from its
defined permanent residents.
The current decision taken has not really abrogated
the Article 370 entirely, but it has used a part of the article to abrogate the
entire Article itself except for clause (1) which treats Kashmir as a part of
India.
The article 370 (3) states that
“Notwithstanding anything in the
provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare
that this article shall cease to be operative only with such exceptions and
modifications and from such date as he may specify. Provided that the
recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the state referred to in clause (2)
shall be necessary before the president issues such notification.”
In other
words, the President can modify or even repeal Article 370 in consultation with
the Constituent Assembly; but no State Government or Constituent Assembly existed
in Kashmir, thus, the powers were transferred to the Parliament of India. The Indian
Parliament can thus take a decision in collaboration with the President to declare it
null and void and that’s what happened. This also leads to the abrogation of
Article 35 A. Thus, Article 370 was itself used against it to
make it null and void.
The Stand of Various Parties on the Abolition
of Article 370:
In Support:
o
Bahujan
Samaj Party
o
Shiv
Sena
o
Aam
Aadmi Party
o
Biju
Janata Dal
o
AIADMK
o
Telugu
Desam Party
o
Telangana
Rashtra Samiti
Against:
o
Janta
Dal (United)
o
Indian
National Congress
o
Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam
o
People’s
Democratic Party
o
Trinamool
Congress
o
National
Conference
o
CPI
(Maoist)
Opinions:
Of the people
who SUPPORT the move:
- Economic
Development in Kashmir: they believe that the economy in Kashmir will now
develop since people will be allowed to buy land; will be allowed to invest in
businesses and other opportunities that will cause a rise in the prices of land
and locals will thus be able to lease their properties and make money; companies
will start investing and bring in employment; education opportunities may
arise, students might come in from other states; might also create an
opportunity for government jobs.
- More
jobs = less terrorism: the overall development will create job opportunities
for people, lead to a decrease in unrest among people and thus reduce terrorism
and other crimes.
- Share benefits under the Indian law: The Indian laws will now be applicable to Kashmir as well which
will allow it to take benefit from the laws like RTI, RTE, and others.
- Good
for Kashmiri pandits: the Kashmiri pandits will now be able to return. (Click here to read more about it.)
- Psychological
impact: one flag – one nation; will make the Kashmiris feel more integrated
with India.
-
Hotel Industry can experience a boom since many limitations will be removed.
-
Military
expenditure and other resources deployed in Kashmir will reduce.
-
Ladakh
will develop at a faster pace.
Of people who OPPOSE the move:
- Kashmiris did not consent: thousands of troops were sent suddenly, without the consent
of Kashmiri residents, the internet was shut down, telephone lines were disconnected,
suddenly all communication mediums were cut-off. Government took the decision so
discretely the residents couldn’t even bat an eye.
- Kashmiri
politicians under house arrest: 400 politicians in Kashmir were locked down under
house arrest, including 2 former chief ministers. The common public was also locked
inside their homes.
- Fascist and undemocratic: since the Kashmiris were not consented many people believe it
was an illegal move. Dissolving the state assembly and imposing the President’s
rule without any elections was as good as a move under dictatorship. No ear was
given to the people of Kashmir or the democratically elected politicians.
- Unconstitutional
cheating: this decision was taken when the state assembly was not existing,
hence the Indian Govt used a loophole from the Article itself – this move was
thus termed unconstitutional. Indian govt took the decision when the Kashmiris
were vulnerable.
People
felt cheated because the Indian Government said that they are deploying 10000
troops in the valley as they were expecting a major terrorist attack form
Pakistan army-backed terrorist groups the real truth was hidden. (to counter
this argument people said that: if this was not done and if the news was made
public, there would have been a panic attack in the valley, it may have also
alarmed the terrorist groups and cautioned them. Things would have then turned out
to be worse. The act would have been much more violent than it was. People would
have responded more violently if the army was not deployed and the correct news
was out and above all if they were informed about the correct news it would be
as good as elongating the already existing debate of 70 years).
- Illegal
Occupation: separatists say that Article 370 was the only legal connecting
factor between India and Kashmir and thus after its abolishment there is no
legal ground or evidence that Kashmir is legally a part of India.
Mehbooba
Mufti tweeted – “unilateral decision of the Indian Govt to scrap article 370 is
illegal and unconstitutional which will make India an occupational force in India”.
There
could be a problem in the UN or even worldwide; some say that Kashmir has now
become an Indian military occupied state.
- No
debate No discussion: On 05/08/2019, in the Rajya Sabha, the Indian Government
decided that J&K along with Ladakh will be declared as Union Territories of
India, without any debate or discussion on the bill.
- Special
status -to- Normal State -to- Union Territory: This transition form Special
Status to Union Territory implies that the democracy level is much lower now
since the Central Government has an upper hand over it. Democracy will become
less because even though ppl can elect between the parties, the elected party will
not have full power over the state as they will have to consult with the Central
Government before taking any major decisions. If this can be done to J&K,
it can be done to any other state in the future – a classic example of this is
Delhi where the state and the center exist with each other and are at conflict
since the past 5 years.
- Pakistan’s
reaction: Pakistan, the hostile neighbour to J&K reacted by saying it will
downgrade its diplomatic relations with India and suspend bilateral trade with
India. (Click here to read more about it.)
Some snippets of people’s reactions to the move:
Even if we accept and conclude that the decision
was correct since it will bring about economic development in a place that was
held back for so long; is there a guarantee that it will remain a success in
the long run? It might fail because the state will not be integrated with India
unless and until the people are.
While people are in a continuous debate about
this abrogation, no one really knows about, nor can anyone accurately predict the
long-term repercussions of this move. Will it turn out to be like the Demonetization
decision, where the intentions were right but the implementation was a failure
to a great extent? Let’s just wait and hope for the best.
No comments:
Post a Comment