Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1024core | Hacker News Reader

> Few years who when India unilaterally changed the status of Kashmir

You must not know how laws work. Kashmir agreed to join India in 1948. It was given a special status, enshrined in Article 370 of the Constitution of India. Now, that "special status" has always bothered a lot of Indians; what's so special about Kashmir? Why not any of the other 537 states that formed India in 1947?

There were certain conditions on which Article 370 could be removed. Those conditions were met in 2019 and the Central Government took the decision to remove Article 370 to much rejoicing in areas like Ladakh and Jammu. This was challenged in the Indian Supreme Court (the final arbiter of things Constitutional) and found to be valid.

View on HN

"Kashmir agreed to join India in 1948"

What you are saying seems to be factual true, but for context one should probably add, that the only other option would have been Pakistan. Whose troops were already inside Kashmir. Independence, which is what most Kashmiris likely would have preferred, was not on the table offered to them, by any of the bigger empires around them. And the Kashmir independence movement in its whole, seems to be considered terrorism by india since day one.

There were many other independent to semi independent nations in India then who agreed to join India due to various forms of pressure. E.g. south Kerala Travancore was a princely state where the king gave up the throne and joined India, Bhutan was a princely state and became an independent kingdom. What makes Kashmir special. It could've stayed independent and gotten destroyed I guess. Who knows, speculative history.

"It could've stayed independent and gotten destroyed I guess. "

Kashmir as a independent state is also destroyed in the current timeline.

"What makes Kashmir special. "

Lot's of things. But yes, other states are also special.

I am open for them, to go for independence, or at least local autonomy as well, if they like.

Depends on your definition of destroyed I guess, point was various events and conditions led to nations joining India and Kashmir shouldn't have special status because of whatever conditions at the time. About independence etc, I'm not diving into fantasy territory lol.

This was a very controversial and shady decision. While legally the conditions were met, according to the Supreme Court, I understood it was only possible because there was no elected government in Kashmir at that moment, and it has been put under direct supervision of the central government. But correct me if I misremembered or misinterpreted of course.

Legally it was defensible. That's what matters. Was it controversial? Sure.

But India has several "union territories". Kashmir is not unique.

On the other hand, citizens of Jammu and Ladakh were overjoyed, so there lots of people who supported it.

Now Kashmir is getting tons of investment. They'll be spending nearly a billion dollars on building metros in Srinagar. Such progress would not have been possible under the old regime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com