Indian Government Repeals Articles 370 and 35A, Bifurcates Kashmir | Hacker News Reader

Indian Government Repeals Articles 370 and 35A, Bifurcates Kashmir

news18.com

52 pointsgablusky29 comments

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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...

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

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.

> 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_...

This sounds like executive privilege in the US, which basically is unilaterally added or withdrawn by the current president.

If so, that would explain why no one in that article is complaining about the legality of the move.

This just resembles a coup.

Alternatively, it resembles a conflict zone with a history of intercommunal violence, and armed conflict involving three countries. Which it is, actually.

Not just that, regressive practices like Triple Talaq and Child marriage were still legal in Kashmir.

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...

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?

(I am also not sure but trying what I can say)

1 - Yes it will work like other UTs. 2 - To avoid nuisance and violence. To avoid future offence. P.S. A precautionary measure to keep the state in peace. 3 - Because they kept this state departed from India. Now its one nation one constitution one flag.

There are both sided opionions but overall this decision is liked by Indians + Ladakhis no idea of kashmiris. Jammu people have liked this.

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.

> 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.

> Does it mean that this province cannot have elected local leaders?

They will have no locally elected representatives in the local government. However they will still elect a Member of Parliament who will represent them in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Indian Parliament).

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

India has a few 'union territories' already. They send elected representatives to the Lok Sabha (the lower house / house of representatives equivalent). The new Ladakh UT, will also do the same.

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

They are prominent local leaders, and the center wants to avoid them from leading civil unrest.

> Why were these two articles repealed?

Any answer to this question is broad over simplification. I'll try to give my most un-biased opinion. - The status quo was perceived as not working in resolving Kashmir's status since the last 70+ years. It didn't improve for India, Kashmiris or Pakistan who stake claim. - It increases the leverage India has for any future solution of Kashmir. - It would reduce the barriers of Kashmir's integration with rest of India.

The desirability of above, depends on who you're.

I'll try to answer your questions. I may be partially wrong on some points. * India has multiple levels of government - village, district, state, centre. Now Ladakh will not have any state government as such. All the responsibilities will be handled by a Lt. Governor appointment by the center. It makes sense because Ladakh is very sparsely populated and the state legislature would have very few legislators to be effective. People would continue to vote in village, district, and central leaders. * Since Article 370 and 35a were in place, nobody else (except people of the state) could buy land. Subsequently there is very little industialization, and investment. These leaders amassed lots of land and wealth. They would do anything to keep it, including fomenting violence. They were placed under house arrest to stop this.

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...

> 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...

> 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”.”

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'

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

eh?

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

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

Technically nope!

Unless Pak takes it personally without any reason.

it's clearly crossing the line. two areas in disputed territory. some under pk and some under india. few under india want to join pk, but now they are occupied. will pk help people who wanted to join them since inception. time will tell

Reply on news.ycombinator.com