Gov in process of repealing Art 370

[scorpio90]

Minutes after taking charge, Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office Jitendra Singh on Tuesday said that the government is in the process of repealing Article 370 that guarantees a special category status for Jammu and Kashmir. Jitendra Singh said that the NDA government is in talks with the stakeholders. "The process of repealing Article 370 has started. We are speaking to stakeholders. The BJP has won more than half of the seats from Jammu and Kashmir, so will you interpret it as an endorsement of the BJP's stand," Singh asked. "370 is more like a psychological barrier," he added. The BJP in its election manifesto had reiterated its stand on Article 370, saying it would discuss with all stakeholders for abrogation of this article, besides ensuring the return of Kashmiri Pandits to the land of their ancestors with full dignity, security and assured livelihood.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/we-are-in-the-process-of-repealing-article-370-mos-pmo-jitendra-singh/474671-37-64.html

[Sachin=GOD]

[scorpio90]

Seems like Sardesai has twisted the statement:

[Cricket_Hacker]

This is gonna get interesting

[BeautifulGame]

Think they need 2/3rd majority in both look sabha and RS to make constitutional amendment s. So not likely unless they convince most of the regional parties which is unlikely

[diga]

Hope they start some talk on uniform civil code too..

[diga]

If one were to list one feature of the Constitution that provokes instant controversy, it has to be Article 370. Listed in part XXI of the Constitution that deals with temporary, transitional and special provisions, Article 370 endows Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) with a distinct legal and political identity endowed with no other state. At a rally in Jammu on Sunday, Narendra Modi, the prime ministerial candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), called for a debate on Article 370 on whether it had benefited J&K or not. An instant controversy ensued. Part of it had to do with Modi himself: anything he says is subjected to intense scrutiny, as it should be. But a lot also has to do with the touchy nature of the subject. The article was the product of extraordinary circumstances in which J&K acceded to India; the hopes, and belied hopes, of residents of the state and the fears about secessionism that has prevailed there for a long time now. Essentially, the article imposes limits on the legislative power of the Union over J&K. There are strict limits to what Parliament can legislate for the state. Special measures are required to extend any ordinary legislation to the state. The state has a separate constitution, something that no other state has. These provisions give a large measure of autonomy to the state. But that is not enough for many. Nothing short of a totally separate identity with the most tenuous links to the Union will satisfy such people. India is unique among countries that have let this separate identity transmute into outright demands for secession. There are examples where groups with different languages and cultures have been assimilated in the country where they are located while preserving their identity. South Tyrol (a predominantly German cultural area in Italy) is one example. There other examples as well. But J&K is in a different class altogether. Pakistan’s continuous interference in the state, mistakes made by New Delhi and a vested separatist constituency make a peaceful solution very difficult. Demands for repealing Article 370 largely centre on ending this problem. The original purpose of Article 370 was to give a measure of autonomy and confidence to the people of the state that their way of life and political interests would be safeguarded. Autonomy soon bred a distinct identity and that, in turn, spawned a secessionist ideology. In the conditions that prevail in J&K, a mere mention of the repeal of Article 370 creates an uproar. So when Modi merely hinted at a debate on the subject, the political class in J&K was up in arms. India’s mistakes in J&K are well-known and have a painful history. Largely, they had to do with the lack of confidence and fear on part of the Union government about the potential loss of the state. In the process, mistakes were made that created a mess that is only being slowly corrected. But that fear remains in the minds of policymakers in New Delhi. A mere hint at changing the relationship between the state and the Union sends alarm bells ringing. This has prevented clear-headed thinking on the subject. If political reasons for undoing Article 370 are clear, the constitutional path to that end has been complicated by a thicket of interpretations that ultimately serve no purpose. And the constitutional problem is a reflection of the vicious politics of autonomy in J&K. There has been a fair bit of legal quibbling on the nature of Article 370. Some of these disputes are well-known. For example, technically it is impossible to repeal the article. The simply worded argument for this claim is this: that any amendment or abrogation will require the concurrence of the constituent assembly of J&K, a body that no longer exists. That assembly was dissolved in January 1957 after it finished the task of framing the Constitution of J&K. This is a fascinatingly corrupt interpretation whose sole political purpose is to ensure a special, distinct status for J&K. The facts are different. Article 370 is a temporary provision of the Constitution. Further, section 3 of the article empowers the President of India to declare that the article has ceased to exist. So, where is the hitch in repealing Article 370? The story is complicated but is worth detailing. In May 1954, the President used his powers under Article 370 to extend a number of provisions of the Constitution of India to J&K. Among these was a proviso to Article 368—the feature that allows amendments to the Constitution—which limited its applicability to J&K. That is a red flag waived against any attempt to repeal Article 370. Again, this is a questionable interpretation. The order is mere executive order that applies to J&K and is not a constitutional amendment. It has no bearing on what exists in the Constitution and what can be amended. There are, of course, limitations to what Parliament can amend. In addition, the Supreme Court through the basic features doctrine has imposed limitations on this power of Parliament. The basic features of the Constitution (for example, the secular nature of the Republic and the separation of powers) cannot be changed. Article 370—a temporary provision—is certainly not a basic feature and as such there ought to be no bar against its repeal. Siddharth Singh is Editor (Views) at Mint. Reluctant Duelist will take stock of matters economic, political and strategic—in India and elsewhere—every fortnight.

[Sachin=GOD]

Seems like Sardesai has twisted the statement:

Rajdeep Sardesai ‏@sardesairajdeep For those who ask, we have MOS Jitendra Singh on camera saying he has begun the process of talking to stakeholders to abrogate article 370

[Sachin=GOD]

Firstpost ‏@firstpostin New MOS PMO says process/discussions to revoke Art 370 have started. Wow, that was a quick beginning. Not sure who is talking: Omar Abdullah Firstpost ‏@firstpostin Mark my words. Long after Modi Govt is distant memory either J&K won't be part of India or Art 370 will still exist: Omar Abdullah

[scorpio90]

If both Chor son and father duo want to play dirty then Modi should do so. begin with bill to give women especially who marry outside the state equal rights to property in the name of women empowerment. They have already opposed this, use this to remove the mask of liberalism they wear. Make them a toxic entity for the rest of the left leaning and pseudo secular entity in india who would be willing to support them and their viewpoint. The go for the jugular.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Firstpost ‏@firstpostin New MOS PMO says process/discussions to revoke Art 370 have started. Wow, that was a quick beginning. Not sure who is talking: Omar Abdullah Firstpost ‏@firstpostin Mark my words. Long after Modi Govt is distant memory either J&K won't be part of India or Art 370 will still exist: Omar Abdullah

Mark my words.Long after Abdullah family is a distant memory J and K will be part of India and Art 370 wont exist. Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

[cowboysfan]

Firstpost ‏@firstpostin New MOS PMO says process/discussions to revoke Art 370 have started. Wow, that was a quick beginning. Not sure who is talking: Omar Abdullah Firstpost ‏@firstpostin Mark my words. Long after Modi Govt is distant memory either J&K won't be part of India or Art 370 will still exist: Omar Abdullah

Omar is a sore loser,he wont get his way this time.I dont think Bjp wll touch this now but they will do it if they stabilize the economy.

[G_B_]

I wonder if the BJP and PDP will form a pre poll alliance...... odds on that PDP will dominate in the valley and BJP will dominate in Jammu Provided Modi can provide an economic package Mufti will take it. BJP may not officially be part of government but may support from the outside. Who knows even Omar might take the offer of the BJP if BJP turns out to be kingmakers.

[G_B_]

Think they need 2/3rd majority in both look sabha and RS to make constitutional amendment s. So not likely unless they convince most of the regional parties which is unlikely

I am not too sure thats the case with regards to 370.

[scorpio90]

[Muloghonto]

This is epic, if true. We better be bloody sure to seal the border with Pakistan and make Kashmir-Ladakh as safe as possible for this to work. Heck, knowing Pakistan, i hope it was already sealed before this type of announcements are made.

[BeautifulGame]

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/understanding-article-370/article5426473.ece Article 370 was and is about providing space, in matters of governance, to the people of a State who felt deeply vulnerable about their identity and insecure about the future. At the Bharatiya Janata Party’s recent Lalkar rally in Jammu, its prime ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi, called for a debate on Article 370. This is encouraging and suggests that the BJP may be willing to review its absolutist stance on the Article that defines the provisions of the Constitution of India with respect to Jammu and Kashmir. Any meaningful debate on Article 370 must, however, separate myth from reality and fact from fiction. My purpose here is to respond to the five main questions that have already been raised in the incipient debate. Why it was incorporated First, why was Article 370 inserted in the Constitution? Or as the great poet and thinker, Maulana Hasrat Mohini, asked in the Constituent Assembly on October 17, 1949: “Why this discrimination please?†The answer was given by Nehru’s confidant, the wise but misunderstood Thanjavur Brahmin, Gopalaswami Ayyangar (Minister without portfolio in the first Union Cabinet, a former Diwan to Maharajah Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir, and the principal drafter of Article 370). Ayyangar argued that for a variety of reasons Kashmir, unlike other princely states, was not yet ripe for integration. India had been at war with Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir and while there was a ceasefire, the conditions were still “unusual and abnormal.†Part of the State’s territory was in the hands of “rebels and enemies.†The involvement of the United Nations brought an international dimension to this conflict, an “entanglement†which would end only when the “Kashmir problem is satisfactorily resolved.†Finally, Ayyangar argued that the “will of the people through the instrument of the [J&K] Constituent Assembly will determine the constitution of the State as well as the sphere of Union jurisdiction over the State.†In sum, there was hope that J&K would one day integrate like other States of the Union (hence the use of the term “temporary provisions†in the title of the Article), but this could happen only when there was real peace and only when the people of the State acquiesced to such an arrangement. Second, did Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel oppose Article 370? To reduce the Nehru-Patel relationship to Manichean terms is to caricature history, and this is equally true of their attitude towards Jammu and Kashmir. Nehru was undoubtedly idealistic and romantic about Kashmir. He wrote: “Like some supremely beautiful woman, whose beauty is almost impersonal and above human desire, such was Kashmir in all its feminine beauty of river and valley...†Patel had a much more earthy and pragmatic view and — as his masterly integration of princely states demonstrated — little time for capricious state leaders or their separatist tendencies. But while Ayyangar negotiated — with Nehru’s backing — the substance and scope of Article 370 with Sheikh Abdullah and other members from J&K in the Constituent Assembly (including Mirza Afzal Beg and Maulana Masoodi), Patel was very much in the loop. And while Patel was deeply sceptical of a “state becoming part of India†and not “recognising ... [india’s] fundamental rights and directive principles of State policy,†he was aware of, and a party to, the final outcome on Article 370. Negotiations Indeed, the synergy that Patel and Nehru brought to governing India is evident in the negotiations over Article 370. Consider this. In October 1949, there was a tense standoff between Sheikh Abdullah and Ayyangar over parts of Article 370 (or Article 306A as it was known during the drafting stage). Nehru was in the United States, where — addressing members of the U.S. Congress — he said: “Where freedom is menaced or justice threatened or where aggression takes place, we cannot be and shall not be neutral.†Meanwhile, Ayyangar was struggling with the Sheikh, and later even threatened to resign from the Constituent Assembly. “You have left me even more distressed than I have been since I received your last letter … I feel weighted with the responsibility of finding a solution for the difficulties that, after Panditji left for America ... have been created … without adequate excuse,†he wrote to the Sheikh on October 15. And who did Ayyangar turn to, in this crisis with the Sheikh, while Nehru was abroad? None other than the Sardar himself. Patel, of course, was not enamoured by the Sheikh, who he thought kept changing course. He wrote to Ayyangar: “Whenever Sheikh Sahib wishes to back out, he always confronts us with his duty to the people.†But it was Patel finally who managed the crisis and navigated most of the amendments sought of the Sheikh through the Congress party and the Constituent Assembly to ensure that Article 370 became part of the Indian Constitution. Third, is Article 370 still intact in its original form? One of the biggest myths is the belief that the “autonomy†as envisaged in the Constituent Assembly is intact. A series of Presidential Orders has eroded Article 370 substantially. While the 1950 Presidential Order and the Delhi Agreement of 1952 defined the scope and substance of the relationship between the Centre and the State with the support of the Sheikh, the subsequent series of Presidential Orders have made most Union laws applicable to the State. In fact today the autonomy enjoyed by the State is a shadow of its former self, and there is virtually no institution of the Republic of India that does not include J&K within its scope and jurisdiction. The only substantial differences from many other States relate to permanent residents and their rights; the non-applicability of Emergency provisions on the grounds of “internal disturbance†without the concurrence of the State; and the name and boundaries of the State, which cannot be altered without the consent of its legislature. Remember J&K is not unique; there are special provisions for several States which are listed in Article 371 and Articles 371-A to 371-I. Fourth, can Article 370 be revoked unilaterally? Clause 3 of Article 370 is clear. The President may, by public notification, declare that this Article shall cease to be operative but only on the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State. In other words, Article 370 can be revoked only if a new Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir is convened and is willing to recommend its revocation. Of course, Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution to change this provision. But this could be subject to a judicial review which may find that this clause is a basic feature of the relationship between the State and the Centre and cannot, therefore, be amended. Gender bias? Fifth, is Article 370 a source of gender bias in disqualifying women from the State of property rights? Article 370 itself is gender neutral, but the definition of Permanent Residents in the State Constitution — based on the notifications issued in April 1927 and June 1932 during the Maharajah’s rule — was thought to be discriminatory. The 1927 notification included an explanatory note which said: “The wife or a widow of the State Subject … shall acquire the status of her husband as State Subject of the same Class as her Husband, so long as she resides in the State and does not leave the State for permanent residence outside the State.†This was widely interpreted as suggesting also that a woman from the State who marries outside the State would lose her status as a State subject. However, in a landmark judgement, in October 2002, the full bench of J&K High Court, with one judge dissenting, held that the daughter of a permanent resident of the State will not lose her permanent resident status on marrying a person who is not a permanent resident, and will enjoy all rights, including property rights. Finally, has Article 370 strengthened separatist tendencies in J&K? Article 370 was and is about providing space, in matters of governance, to the people of a State who felt deeply vulnerable about their identity and insecure about the future. It was about empowering people, making people feel that they belong, and about increasing the accountability of public institutions and services. Article 370 is synonymous with decentralisation and devolution of power, phrases that have been on the charter of virtually every political party in India. There is no contradiction between wanting J&K to be part of the national mainstream and the State’s desire for self-governance as envisioned in the Article. Separatism grows when people feel disconnected from the structures of power and the process of policy formulation; in contrast, devolution ensures popular participation in the running of the polity. It can be reasonably argued that it is the erosion of Article 370 and not its creation which has aggravated separatist tendencies in the State. Not surprisingly, at the opposition conclave in Srinagar in 1982, leaders of virtually all national parties, including past and present allies of the BJP, declared that the “special constitutional status of J&K under Article 370 should be preserved and protected in letter and spirit.†A review of its policy on Article 370, through an informed debate, would align today’s BJP with the considered and reflective approach on J&K articulated by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Only then would the slogans of Jhumuriyat, Kashmiriyat and Insaniyat make real sense.

[hhunaeh]

Who are you talking to on Article 370? Omar Abdullah asks Centre

SRINAGAR: Jammu & Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah on Wednesday asked the central government to come clean on who are the "stakeholders" it was talking about on the contentious issue of revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution. His comments came a day after minister of state in the PMO Jitendra Singh stirred up a controversy by declaring the new government has started the process for repealing Article 370, which grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir within the Indian republic.

[Raghav_12]

Who are you talking to on Article 370? Omar Abdullah asks Centre

Lol.. U-Turns have started.

[Stuge]

:hysterical: