Repeal of ‘special status’
The Supreme Court of India’s verdict on the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, following prolonged and detailed arguments between learned attorneys on both sides, raises important considerations that warrant public attention. While the verdict is welcome, its potential to bring peace and tranquility to Jammu and Kashmir remains uncertain. The impact of this decision on Kashmiris is a matter of significant concern. Article 370 seemingly had no direct correlation with the current situation in the Valley before or since insurgency reemerged in the early 1990s. In reality, Article 370 served as a tool to maintain the allegiance of ordinary Kashmiris to India. Its significance is particularly crucial for moderate Kashmiris who argue for alignment with India. Whether Article 370 is in place or not, it seems unlikely to bring about any substantial changes in Kashmir. Human rights violations persist, and separatists may find their stance vindicated.
Arif Zain,
Malappuram, Kerala
The process of integration was not limited to ‘dialogue between Kashmir’s leaders and the Union Government’. It extended from south to north and east to west and varied widely. Have the context and conditions in which each State was acceded to India and the terms of the instrument of accession in all cases been kept till now? Have not promises made by constitutional functionaries been ignored and overruled by the whims and fancies of ruling parties? Probably, such instances are legalised by the judiciary. Look at how Article 291, another guarantee to sections of citizens, was continually watered and finally thrown out by a Presidential Order of 1970, though later, the process was passed by Parliament as the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, in 1971. The changes made in Article 370 too have the approval of both the Houses, and now that of the highest court of the land. Moreover, Articles 291 and 370 were thought out as measures on a temporary basis at the time of Independence as parts of instruments of accession of States to the Union. If Article 291 could be deleted, why not Article 370?
P.R.V. Raja,
Pandalam, Kerala
The expected has happened. That Kashmir was an integral part of India was never in doubt but the Instrument of Accession (IOA) was the buffer to reduce the friction between absolute and total sovereignty and the constitutional amalgamation. The IOA has been given a go by. The process of the abrogation is not without its follies. The Court’s suggestion to set up a ‘truth and reconciliation commission’ in a scenario where truth has become history and brute majoritarian authoritarianism is more the rule than the exception, offers no balm. The redeeming factor is the Court’s direction to hold elections at the earliest and bring back popular rule to heal the wounds of the abrogation.
Varghese George,
Hyderabad
It is time now to accept the legal validity of the status of Jammu and Kashmir in the federal structure of our country. It is the duty of all political parties to prevent violence and the loss of life. It is time to forget the bitterness, the violence and the bloodshed. Certain parties should not try to derail this verdict and mislead the public.
R. Rajamahendran,
Perumalthevanpatti, Tamil Nadu
A new era awaits J&K. The need is for fast development with more business houses, production companies, agriculture, the best medical and health services, good education facilities and more tourism to spread the fragrance of roses.
J.P. Reddy,
Nalgonda, Telangana
.jpg?w=600)
