REVOCATION OF ARTICLE 370- A BOON or A BANE
Aristotle
believed, “Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the
rulers.’’
On 5th August
2019, our Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganization Bill, 2019, in the Rajya Sabha. It was a proposal to convert
Jammu and Kashmir's status of a state to two separate union territories, namely
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh. And to
everyone’s surprise, the bill was almost unanimously passed in both the houses
without provoking any major brawl and quarrel that the Parliament used to
observe. With this bill coming into effect, the rightists declared the Act as a
triumph of Hindutva. And the people on the other end of the kernel described it
as a catastrophe for India's democracy. Now, whether the decision was right or
wrong- only time can tell. So, before we jump to any conclusion, we need to get
the facts right.
Rajya Sabha passed
this bill seeking the removal of article 370 and that of the state’s
reorganization on 5th August 2019 with a lead of 64 votes. On the following
day, the bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha and was passed almost immediately
with a preponderance of about 300 votes: it had 351 votes in favor and 72 in
against.
The issue of
Kashmir was a long driven one. The story started with "Now, therefore, I
Shriman Inder Mahander Rajrajeswar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singhji, Jammu and
Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbetadi Deshadhipathi, Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, in
the exercise of my sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this
my Instrument of Accession [... .]" and in this way, J&K got subsumed
into India on account of the attack by Pakistan to illegally occupy Jammu and
Kashmir.
The war extended
for more than a year after the accession, in what was called the first
India-Pakistan war. Finally, the United Nations enacted a ceasefire at the end
of 1948. After years of long mediations, both countries agreed to the
ceasefire, which then came into effect on August 13, 1948, and was adopted by
the UN on January 5, 1949.
Under the
instrument of accession, only three subjects were given to India to take care
of: External affairs, defense, and communications. It also acted as a sign of
assurance that the people of Jammu and Kashmir through their own Constituent
Assembly can make their own Constitution. In response to this, article 370 and
35(a) gave a special status to Kashmir- allowing it to have a separate
constitution, a state flag, and autonomy over the internal administration of
the state.
Now, why did BJP
suddenly come up with the idea of revocation of the article and reorganization
of the state? Was it a very pre-planned arrangement? Or was it a conspiracy to
undemocratize India as liberalists labeled it? Well, Narendra Modi termed it as
something that took him a great deal of thought.
According to him,
Jammu & Kashmir National Conference (NC), Indian National Congress
(Congress), and Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) exploited
Kashmir for a long time, and in the course of their dynastic politics, Kashmir
became the victim.
The exodus of Kashmiri Hindu Pandits and the increased cases of ceasefire
violations reflected the atrocities inflicted upon the innocent Kashmiris who
were mere puppets in the hands of these big-shot politicians. Also, the former
governments turned a deaf ear to the problems faced by the people of Ladakh for
several decades now. One of them, as stated by Tsering Namgyal, was the absence
of a single university in Ladakh until this year.
In an interview to
The Economic Times, PM Modi stated that the government's decision to revoke
Article 370 would ensure "stability, market access, and predictable
laws" in the state, which could help it gain investment, especially in key
sectors like tourism, agriculture, IT, healthcare among others. "This will
help develop an ecosystem that will give better rewards to the skills, hard
work, and products of the people in the region," replied the PM. So, to
actually and fully integrate Kashmir into India, this decision was necessary.
On the other side, some groups believed this bill to
be undemocratic in the first place. They felt it was an absolute violation of
the promises made to Raja Hari Singh as the decision led to the dissolution of
its constituent assembly, its constitution, and the land of Kashmir can now be
purchased and sold by anyone to anyone. The fact that such a controversial bill
was passed without much public discourse was a matter of amusement in itself.
Also, the violence that this bill generated went underreported. There was no
accurate news of what happened in Kashmir except for some photos on Facebook
and Instagram titled according to people’s pursuits even after months.
The report
prepared by EU MEP on their visit to Kashmir also remained diplomatic and
trivialized the entire situation as an internal matter. This visit was again
criticized by the EU legislators calling it one-sided, private and felt the
portrayal of Kashmir by these delegated was somewhat incorrect.
Some of the
important questions here could be- Wasn’t the opinion of the people of Jammu
and Kashmir important enough to be considered before the implementation of this
Act? Why was the house arrest of politically elected leaders necessary?
Also, why are there reports of people missing? Why is the air of Kashmir still
rife with fear and rumor?
Amidst this situation
of suspicion and instability, the Supreme Court’s decision to allow internet
access in Jammu and Kashmir truly held the spirit of democracy or not, could
also be a question to deal with because this ruling completely ignored the
rights and remedies of the people there. Was it right for the court to
compensate freedom of speech and expression with an assurance for internet
access? This judgment clearly lacked a relief for those whose cries for habeas
corpus and freedom of movement went muffled.
These are some of
the questions for which we may never get any concrete answers. But it’s better
for democracy that we continue to ask them.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
3.
https://thewire.in/law/sc-internet-shutdown-judgement
Well-written!
ReplyDelete