India's BJP-led government is hailing its decision to strip the state of Jammu and Kashmir of autonomy after seven decades, characterising it as the correction of a "historical blunder". Kashmir is a Himalayan region that both India and Pakistan say is fully theirs.
The area was once a princely state called Jammu and Kashmir, but it joined India in soon after the sub-continent was divided up at the end of British rule. India and Pakistan subsequently went to war over it and each came to control different parts of the territory with a ceasefire line agreed.
There has been violence in the Indian-administered side - the state of Jammu and Kashmir - for 30 years due to a separatist insurgency against Indian rule. In the first few days of August, there were signs of something afoot in Kashmir. Tens of thousands of additional Indian troops were deployed, a major Hindu pilgrimage was cancelled, schools and colleges were shut, tourists were ordered to leave, telephone and internet services were suspended and regional political leaders were placed under house arrest.
But most of the speculation was that Article 35A of the Indian constitution, which gave some special privileges to the people of the state, would be scrapped. The government then stunned everyone by saying it was revoking nearly all of Article , which 35A is part of and which has been the basis of Kashmir's complex relationship with India for some 70 years.
The article allowed the state a certain amount of autonomy - its own constitution, a separate flag and freedom to make laws. Foreign affairs, defence and communications remained the preserve of the central government. As a result, Jammu and Kashmir could make its own rules relating to permanent residency, ownership of property and fundamental rights.
It could also bar Indians from outside the state from purchasing property or settling there. The constitutional provision has underpinned India's often fraught relationship with Kashmir, the only Muslim-majority region to join India at partition.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party had long opposed Article and revoking it was in the party's election manifesto.
They argued it needed to be scrapped to integrate Kashmir and put it on the same footing as the rest of India. After returning to power with a massive mandate in the April-May general elections, the government lost no time in acting on its pledge. Critics of Monday's move are linking it to the economic slowdown that India is currently facing - they say it provides a much-needed diversion for the government.
Many Kashmiris believe that the BJP ultimately wants to change the demographic character of the Muslim-majority region by allowing non-Kashmiris to buy land there. Although Home Minister Amit Shah's announcement in parliament on Monday came as a surprise to most Indians, it would have taken the government some preparation to arrive at the decision.
Last month, a senior BJP leader hinted that the government was planning to form exclusive Hindu settlements in the region.
Prime Minister Modi led his BJP to a landslide win in May on the back of a divisive campaign that ostensibly targeted Muslims, vowing to remoe Article and its 35A provision. Kashmiris fear the move would lead to a demographic transformation of the region from majority-Muslim to majority-Hindu. This is a sort of a radical new provision, which many people are saying will require a constitutional amendment.
Article of the Indian constitution permits revocation of the law by presidential order. Since that body was dissolved in , experts have different views on the abrogation of the law, with some believing it needs approval by state lawmakers and others seeing a presidential order as sufficient.
It can be expected that these will be heard by a constitutional bench in the Supreme Court. Published On 5 Aug More from News.
Rivian is now biggest US company by market value with no revenue. US indicts ex-Trump aide Bannon for defying January 6 subpoena. Article 35A empowers the Jammu and Kashmir legislature to define the permanent residents of the state, and their special rights and privileges. Therefore, the discriminatory provisions under Article 35A are now unconstitutional.
The President may also withdraw Article 35A. This provision is currently under challenge in the Supreme Court on the ground that it could have been introduced in the Indian Constitution only through a constitutional amendment under Article , and not through a Presidential Order under Article The Bill will come up in Lok Sabha on Tuesday, and is expectedly to pass easily.
In effect, the state of Jammu and Kashmir will now cease to exist; it will be replaced by two new Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
UTs have become states earlier; this is the first time that a state has been converted into a UT. Article 3 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution by a simple majority to change the boundaries of a state, and to form a new state. But this change requires that such a Bill be first referred to the concerned state Assembly by the President for ascertaining its views. Not only has Jammu and Kashmir lost its special status, it has been given a status lower than that of other states.
Instead of 29, India will now have 28 states. Raja Mohan writes: Possibilities in the Northwest. It is also likely that corporates and individuals will be able to buy land in Jammu and Kashmir. Non-Kashmiris might now get jobs in Kashmir. A process of demographic change might begin, and progress over the coming decades.
In SBI , the apex court accepted the presence of this compact for Kashmir. The original draft of Article was drawn up by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
A modified version of the draft was passed in the Constituent Assembly of India on May 27, Some critics of Article have argued earlier that Kashmir joined India in without any conditions, and Article unnecessarily gave it special status. However, the drafting of the Constitution ended on November 26, — Article had been included before the Constitution was adopted.
The odd princely states that had signed subsidiary alliances with the British had their sovereignty restored to them, and were given the options of remaining independent, joining the Dominion of India, or joining the Dominion of Pakistan.
Section 6 a of the Act said joining either India or Pakistan would have to be through an Instrument of Accession. States could specify the terms on which they were joining one of the new dominions. Technically, therefore, the Instrument of Accession was like a treaty between two sovereign countries that had decided to work together.
The maxim of pacta sunt servanda in international law, which governs contracts or treaties between states, asks that promises must be honoured. The Maharaja, the Hindu king of a Muslim-majority state, had initially wanted to stay independent.
0コメント