DE-OPERATIONALISE OF ARTICLE 370

APPSC
GROUP 1 MAINS
           Article 370 was de-operationalised; it was not abbrigated. Using the sub clause of article 370, government of India made Article 370 de-operationalised. On the recommendation of constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir article 370 can be deoperationalised. President of India by public notification declare article 370 shall cease to be operate or Shall be  operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may be specify.

Is article 370 can be removed?
            It is a long debate. some debate that article 370 is included in the constitution under the temporary and special provisions, therefore it is a temporary provision. In 1959, 1969 and 2018 supreme Court of India said that article 370 has acquired permanency, so some other debate that it has acquired permanency.

            Why did apex court called it permanent provision? On the recommendation of the constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir president of India by public notification makes article 370 cease to operate. The Jammu Kashmir constituent assembly dissolved without any position on Article 370. So there is no jammu and Kashmir constituent assembly then there is no question of recommendation of the constituent assembly of Jammu and  Kashmir. This is the precise legal vire for the earlier view point. Though this provision is under chapter of temporary provision it has acquired permanency.

What government has done
            Government of India does not dropped the article 370 it still exists in the constitution, but it has become a provision that ceases to operate. Using the power of interpretation of the constitution under article 367 the jammu & Kashmir state assembly is interpreted as Jammu & Kashmir constituent assembly because later is not existed. if State assembly does not exists then Governor acts as the representative of state assembly.
 `Article 35A was inserted to constitution of India in appendix. It defines the permanent residence and permanent resident has alone had the right to education scholarship employment and right to own land in jammu and Kashmir. Once article 370 ceases to operate then article 35A also nullified. It was essentially made to prevent to strike down by the supreme court. Technically article 370 can be revoked anytime.

            The Article 3 of constitution of India empowers parliament with the power to alter boundaries of States, alter constitutional status of any state in India with simple majority. In Pradeep Chaudhary, mangaldeep and Mullaperiyar case supreme Court of India said that ‘india is Union of States it is not Federation of States’. States have not joined Union of India with prior agreement, states are carved out of the union. Fundamental difference between Indian Federation and American Federation is there is only one constitution one set off laws, single citizenship which are applicable to entire country with some variations and exceptions.
Jammu and Kashmir is no longer a state. Never in the history of India where a state is reduced to Union Territory there is instances where union territories or upgraded to States. using the Article 3 the Parliament reduced the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir to Union Territory. Jammu and Kashmir state is bifurcated into Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh union territories with Jammu and Kashmir having legislature and Ladakh without legislature. According to the provision of Article 3 of constitution of India the Parliament while dealing with the boundaries of the state, the parliament is bound to the views of the state legislature but the views are not mandatory, the process of consultation is mandatory. The assembly of Jammu and Kashmir dissolved not existed. When a assembly is dissolved Parliament automatically discharges the legislative powers of an assembly.

            “Faisal Mustafa vice chancellor of NALSAR and constitutional expert says that there is a difference between discharging responsibility and expression of view”. How can the people of other parts of the country express the views on behalf of jammu and Kashmir, So expression of views of different.

What is the argument of Government of India?
            why should Jammu and Kashmir have special status while other states does not have. There is rampant poverty, constitutional rights of the dalits and other vulnerable has not observed. Kashmir failed to attract investment.
            Article 370 has done more lost to Jammu and Kashmir. Article 370 and 35A prevented full integration of Jammu and Kashmir into India. Separatist forces, terrorist have misused the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Using the special status conferred on Jammu and Kashmir Pakistan tell the world that Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory.
            When Government of India spend taxpayers money, why would people of India has no rights in Jammu and Kashmir. Terrorism can be effectively fought when only Jammu and Kashmir become fully part of India.
            Article 370 empowers the President of India to extend any constitutional provision to the Jammu and Kashmir or any Parliament act to Jammu and Kashmir. President of India has issuing orders ever since 1950, most of the parliament acts automatically applicable to Jammu and Kashmir including GST. Right to Education etc. Article 370 is an Empty shell, it  actually has no longer any theme.

            The central government assured the nation that the special constitutional provision as many as 10 states have under Article 371 will remain. Article 370 gives special existence to Jammu and Kashmir therefore it made de-operationalised and other provisions for unaffected.

Criticism
            Jammu and Kashmir have never had problem of terrorism in 1950's and 1960's, when the state enjoyed reasonably high degree of autonomy what exist today. When Article 370 got diluted sense of alienation wash exploited by separatists and the terrorists. Critics argue that separatism, terrorism grown due to growing sense of alienation. There should be autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir within the constitution of India. The Assurance on which Jammu and Kashmir was acceded to India.

            In 1950 Jammu and Kashmir has 77 percentage of Muslim population. The Muslim majority Jammu and Kashmir voluntarily joined the secular India revoking the claims of Pakistan that the muslim majority jammu and Kashmir should be the part of it.  The argument of critics is that Muslim majority jammu and Kashmir consciously choose to be a part of secular India. For that secular India has promised special status. Now denial of special status to Jammu and Kashmir leads to further alienation of Jammu and Kashmir from India.

Conclusion
1.     Kashmir’s accession to India is complete, final and irreversible. India has neither occupied Kashmir nor forcibly taken it into India. The people of muslim majority Jammu and Kashmir voluntarily chose to be part of India.
2.     Kashmir is an integral part of India. No force on earth can take away Jammu and Kashmir from India.
3.     The only unfinished agenda in Kashmir is that the Pak-occupied parts of Kashmir should be integrated with the Indian mainland.
4.     India does not agree to any third party mediation or international mediation in Kashmir. At best India can bilaterally discuss the issue with Pakistan in the spirit of Shimla and Lahore agreements.
5.     Pakistan's chest thumping is absolute hypocrisy. The country that exports terrorism to its neighbours cannot fool the world by repeatedly talking about situation in Kashmir.
6.     Plebiscite or a referendum cannot be a solution to the Kashmir issue as the situation is completely altered since the United Nation resolution. In fact, UN resolution on Kashmir is not mandatory, but only suggestive as clarified by its secretary general in the past.
7.     Article 370 defined the constitutional relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and India. Kashmir acceded to India on the promise that the democratic and secular India would protect its autonomy. Article 370 reflects this constitutional commitment. Abrogation of article 370 belies this commitment resulting in alienation among Kashmiris. The separatist in the Kashmir valley and the terrorist from within and outside borders will further exploit this alienation to strengthen anti Indian sentiment among ordinary Kashmiris. In fact the history so far reveals that the dilution of this autonomy has only strengthened forces hostile to India.
8.     Therefore, any real solution to Kashmir lies in restoring autonomy within the contours of Indian constitution and within unity, integrity and sovereignty of India.
.

.