Explorer
Advertisement
Amit Shah' historic speech after abrogation of article 370 from Kashmir
The abrogation of Article 370, removing the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, has triggered a flurry of reactions with most backing the Centre's move.
Before proceeding to the crux of why this 'special status' has been deleterious for the country, it must be pointed out that radicalisation of Kashmiris is a disparate issue, best dealt with the Vajpayee doctrine of "Insaniyat" (or humanity) combined with no countenance of separatists.
However, the provision empowering the state with 'special' status has always been the elephant in the room.
Jammu & Kashmir has, along with its sensitive topography, appeared like a foreign policy issue, instead of a domestic one due to its status in our Constitution.
There existed an unnecessary chasm between citizens of Kashmir and the rest of India.
It borders on being trite, but nonetheless, sadly, must be reiterated - Article 370 and Article 35-A had to go. Article 370 detailed the relationship Kashmir will share with the rest of the country; Article 35-A granted permanent residents of Kashmir some special rights.
From the get-go, the Constitutional relationship of India with Jammu and Kashmir has been adversely lopsided. India has already ensured the states with the Mizos and the Naga population with constitutional safeguards (special provisions) such as protecting their social practices. India has an assortment of examples where it has performed positive discrimination for groups (Articles 15 and 16) and as mentioned, states.
The problem, to put it succinctly, is that with Kashmir the positive discrimination has tended to be insidious.
Instead of taking a legislative route, Article 35-A was passed through a Presidential order. It subverted the law-making powers of the legislature, granted by the Constitution.
They cannot amend the Constitution. Even an ordinance, which this was most decidedly not, has to be passed by Parliament.
The order, passed in 1954 by the President, was due to fulfilling Article 370 (1) (d). Article 370 itself was supposed to be temporary; the first word of the Article is temporary.
Before proceeding to the crux of why this 'special status' has been deleterious for the country, it must be pointed out that radicalisation of Kashmiris is a disparate issue, best dealt with the Vajpayee doctrine of "Insaniyat" (or humanity) combined with no countenance of separatists.
However, the provision empowering the state with 'special' status has always been the elephant in the room.
Jammu & Kashmir has, along with its sensitive topography, appeared like a foreign policy issue, instead of a domestic one due to its status in our Constitution.
There existed an unnecessary chasm between citizens of Kashmir and the rest of India.
It borders on being trite, but nonetheless, sadly, must be reiterated - Article 370 and Article 35-A had to go. Article 370 detailed the relationship Kashmir will share with the rest of the country; Article 35-A granted permanent residents of Kashmir some special rights.
From the get-go, the Constitutional relationship of India with Jammu and Kashmir has been adversely lopsided. India has already ensured the states with the Mizos and the Naga population with constitutional safeguards (special provisions) such as protecting their social practices. India has an assortment of examples where it has performed positive discrimination for groups (Articles 15 and 16) and as mentioned, states.
The problem, to put it succinctly, is that with Kashmir the positive discrimination has tended to be insidious.
Instead of taking a legislative route, Article 35-A was passed through a Presidential order. It subverted the law-making powers of the legislature, granted by the Constitution.
They cannot amend the Constitution. Even an ordinance, which this was most decidedly not, has to be passed by Parliament.
The order, passed in 1954 by the President, was due to fulfilling Article 370 (1) (d). Article 370 itself was supposed to be temporary; the first word of the Article is temporary.
India
FIR Filed Against Sambhal MP Ziaur Rahman, Statement Released Amidst Controversy
FIR Filed Against Sambhal MP Ziaur Rahman and Local MLA's Son in Controversial Case
Sambhal Violence Sparks Political Firestorm, Congress MP Imran Masood's Strong Remarks | ABP News
Breaking News: SP Leader Ram Gopal Yadav Reacts to Sambhal Violence | ABP News
Sambhal Clash: Stone Pelting on Police, Vandalism in Homes – Eyewitness Reveals Shocking Details
View More
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Top Headlines
Election 2024
Education
Business
Cities
Advertisement
Trending News
Sagarneel SinhaSagarneel Sinha
Opinion