
Indian Government Repeals Articles 370 and 35A, Bifurcates Kashmir - gablusky
https://www.news18.com/news/india/kashmir-live-updates-jammu-and-kashmir-tension-article-370-article-35a-narendra-modi-amit-shah-srinagar-2258121.html
======
negamax
People are making this too big an issue. It's about Indian Kashmir. Currently
rest of the country can't buy land there, can't invest etc. How's that good
for integration.

With 370 gone. Rest of India will be able to invest in Kashmir (Indian
Kashmir).

Edit:

I gathered more information. This is quite beneficial for Kashmiris. Like
really beneficial. Some of their new rights

\- RTI (Right to Information)

\- State elections every 5 years

\- Reservations for minorities

\- Special oversight and power of President in case of emergency

Not to mention biggest benefit would be investment from everywhere that will
flourish the people.

~~~
xrisk
The issue is with the manner in which this was done. How do you think cutting
off the entirety of Kashmir from internet, and making tourists/pilgrims
evacuate the valley looks like?

This just resembles a coup. The people of Kashmir are unable to voice their
opinions.

~~~
addicted
This makes no sense. The people of Michigan don't get to unilaterally veto
Federal laws. Federal laws are set at the federal level and as a result are
dependent on the will of the entire country, even if the impact is only on a
certain part of the country.

When the US President declares a federal emergency in a certain part of the
country that part does not get veto rights over the decision.

Now, I don't know if the actual revocation of the law in question was done
legally, (although further down some 'constitutional expert' says it's
completely legal and no one appears to be claiming otherwise) but assuming it
was, this is nothing like a coup and is in fact the cornerstone of a federal
democracy where certain powers are provided to the federal government, which
are based on the will of the entire country rather than just a state or
province.

~~~
xrisk
Except the special status of Kashmir is laid down in the Constitution of
India; with the provision that any change to that effect should be mutually
agreed on.

To expand; India has the concept of "Union Territories" where the some matters
like law and order (and others, I'm not an expert) which are usually State
matters are controlled by the Central (Federal) government;

What's been done here is the effective equivalent of taking any already well-
established state (say Maharashtra) with an elected legislature and converting
it into a Union Territory; thereby stripping the State of a lot of power.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _the special status of Kashmir is laid down in the Constitution of India;
> with the provision that any change to that effect should be mutually agreed
> on_

Wikipedia says Article 35A "was added to the Constitution through a
Presidential Order" [1] via powers granted by Article 370 [2].

I am unfamiliar with the Indian Constitution. But 370(3) gives the President
the unilateral right to "by public notification, declare that [Article 370]
shall cease to be operative" pending only "the recommendation of the
Constituent Assembly of the State" [2]. (Recommendation, not consent.)

There is no requirement for mutual agreement. Article 370, and thus 35A, are
wholly executive prerogatives.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_35A_of_the_Constitutio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_35A_of_the_Constitution_of_India)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370_of_the_Constitutio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370_of_the_Constitution_of_India)

~~~
xrisk
You are probably correct; IANAL and have only a cursory knowledge of the
matter.

But I don't believe any recommendation from the Constituent Assembly was
received to the best of my knowledge.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _I don 't believe any recommendation from the Constituent Assembly was
> received to the best of my knowledge_

The Constituent Assembly provided its recommendation in the 1950s [1]. (I
think this is where Article 35A came from.) The Assembly doesn't appear to
have convened since 1954. It thus makes sense to interpret the recommendation
requirement in 370(3) as a prohibition on the Indian President cancelling
Article 370 before the Assembly had a chance to make its circa 1954
recommendations.

(Surprisingly, one of those changes was not a mutuality requirement on
termination of the Article.)

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_Assembly_of_Jammu_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_Assembly_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir)

------
poptrex
The article in [0] contains a very clear explanation of how the government was
able to do this.

While it's technically legal, Article 370 had a provision that required the
"recommendation from the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir". But by
imposing president's (central) rule, they were able to bypass this provision
and abrogate the article unilaterally.

[0] [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-
states/explaine...](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-
states/explained-how-the-status-of-jammu-and-kashmir-is-being-
changed/article28822866.ece)

------
grepgeek
I have travelled to India often but I don't understand Indian politics enough.
So if someone here can help me with these questions, I'll appreciate it!

* What does it mean for Lakadh to not have a legislature? Does it mean that this province cannot have elected local leaders?

* Why are the prominent politicians under house arrest? What is their offence?

* Why were these two articles repealed?

~~~
spocklivelong
I only speak of what I know (which may not be correct)

* What does it mean for Lakadh to not have a legislature? Does it mean that this province cannot have elect local leaders?

> I think this means that they will not have legislative power in the
> government (aka similar to USVI or Puerto Rico in the US)

* Why are the prominent politicians under house arrest? What is their offence?

> I believe this is mostly to silence them to not agitate people. Also, these
> articles are widely misused and politicians amassed a lot of land since no
> outsiders can hold land in the area.

* Why were these two articles repealed?

> This is partly for political as well as some economical. Since no one can
> own a property or land in Jammy & Kashmir other than its residents, economy
> growth is much smaller in Kasmir than the rest of India and it helps boost
> Kasmir's economy. The political reason might be that the BJP government
> wants more power in the area.

~~~
enitihas
> I think this means that they will not have legislative power in the
> government (aka similar to USVI or Puerto Rico in the US)

This is incorrect. Not having a legislature here means not having a state
legislature. They will still have an elected representative in the national
parliament, unlike Puerto Rico, or even Washington DC. Perhaps Washington DC
would be the most apt comparison, as in the national government governing a
province.

------
vms20591
Just laying down what happened:

Central Government amended Article 367 of the Constitution to add new
interpretations, by which the Presidential order to abrogate Article 370 and
35A becomes valid.

Basically, the Central Government brought in an amendment, asked the Governor
of the State (appointed by the Central Government), who then recommended the
President for the same and he just signed it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370_of_the_Constitutio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370_of_the_Constitution_of_India#Presidential_Order)

> The presidential order also added new "interpretations" to the Article 367
> of the Constitution. By the new interpretation, the phrase "[Governor of the
> State] acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the
> time being in office" is to be understood simply as the Governor of the
> State. All references to the State Government shall mean the Governor. The
> reference to the "Constituent Assembly" has also been amended to mean the
> "Legislative Assembly of the State"

[https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/double-strike-
president...](https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/double-strike-president-
signs-order-scrapping-article-370-bill-moved-to-make-jammu-and-kashmir-union-
territory/cid/1695881)

> To article 367, there shall be added the following clause, namely:—

“(4) For the purposes of this Constitution as it applies in relation to the
State of Jammu and Kashmir—

(a) references to this Constitution or to the provisions thereof shall be
construed as references to the Constitution or the provisions thereof as
applied in relation to the said State;

(b) references to the person for the time being recognized by the President on
the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadar-i-
Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers
of the State for the time being in office, shall be construed as references to
the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir;

(c) references to the Government of the said State shall be construed as
including references to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice
of his Council of Ministers; and

(d) in proviso to clause (3) of article 370 of this Constitution, the
expression “Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2)” shall
read “Legislative Assembly of the State”.”

------
kjsingh
They plan to use illegal means to cease its operation. According to Article
370 in constitution:

Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the
President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease
to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and
modifications and from such date as he may specify: Provided that the
recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause
(2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.

There is no 'Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of
the State referred to'

------
jsnider3
So, India's at war with Pakistan now? That seems pretty terrible.

~~~
ron_m_smith
Nope! No war. India just taking care of its INTERNAL matters.

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
"Taking care of internal matters" is a great new euphemism.

