Jammu and Kashmir has been a theatre of muscular Hindutva nationalism since 2014 in performance. Dr. Navodita, our Associate Editor, analyses the revocation of Article 370 and the downgrading and dividing the state into two Union Terrorities. A Different Truths exclusive.

As Jammu and Kashmir loses its special status in the Indian Union, the Rajya Sabha adopted the J&K Reorganisation Bill, with 125 votes in favour and 61 against it. There are fears of a fresh bout of violence among a section of Kashmiris as there is pent up resentment among many Kashmiris against this sudden scrapping of Article 370, which gave special status to the state and now there may be a change in their identity.

Adopting a highly militarist approach to separatism, and shunning political process entirely since 2014, the BJP has now delivered on a promise it has long made

Jammu and Kashmir has been a theatre of muscular Hindutva nationalism since 2014 in performance. Adopting a highly militarist approach to separatism, and shunning political process entirely since 2014, the BJP has now delivered on a promise it has long made, by abrogating the special status that Jammu and Kashmir had enjoyed in the Constitution through a combination of executive and parliamentary measures. Additionally, the state is being downgraded and divided into two Union Territories – Laddakh and J&K.

The mechanism that the government used to get its way through the Rajya Sabha is both hasty and stealthy and a partial tampering of Article 356 of the Constitution, where the state was under President’s rule at this time. In Lok Sabha, the J&K Reorganisation Bill found easy passage with 351 in Ayes, 72 voting Noes and one abstaining. The Lower House also voted on the J&K Reservation Bill in the same breath with 366 in favour, 66 voting against and one abstaining.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah tells the House that Article 370 does not unite Jammu and Kashmir with India, like claimed, but keeps it apart. He says that ‘Statehood’ will be given when the time is ripe.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah tells the House that Article 370 does not unite Jammu and Kashmir with India, like claimed, but keeps it apart. He says that ‘Statehood’ will be given when the time is ripe. He blames Jawaharlal Nehru for Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir. He assures the rest of the country that ‘it is not the objective of Narendra Modi’s government to tamper with Article 371’.

Responding to Supriya Sule’s comment on lack of consultations, he said, “Three generations consultations have happened and haven’t yielded results. So, some tough decisions need to be taken, situations need to be changed.”

The BJP-led government has undermined parliamentary authority in multiple ways since 2014, but the passing of legislation as far-reaching as dismembering a state without prior consultations has set a new low.

As situations have been changed, the move is sure to strain the social fabric of the state as it also holds repercussions for parliamentary democracy, federalism and diversity. The BJP-led government has undermined parliamentary authority in multiple ways since 2014, but the passing of legislation as far-reaching as dismembering a state without prior consultations has set a new low.

The founding fathers of the Republic favoured a strong Centre, but they were also careful in seeking the route of persuasion and accommodation towards linguistic and religious minorities in the interest of national integration. The centralising tendencies increased in the following decades, but Hindu nationalists always argued for stronger unitary provisions. For them, Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status was an impediment, not an instrument, for the region’s integration with the rest of the country.

The fact of the matter is that given the democratic deficit, the BJP knows well that legal manipulations are not enough to scrap Article 370. What it needs is the use of force, which is what it has been stealthily preparing for over weeks and months.

The fact of the matter is that given the democratic deficit, the BJP knows well that legal manipulations are not enough to scrap Article 370. What it needs is the use of force, which is what it has been stealthily preparing for over weeks and months. The government has given Kashmiris two options- either assimilate into the mainstream, where mainstream is a code for Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan, or be banished and evicted by force.

Let us now turn to Article 370 (3), which lays down the procedure to amend or repeal Article 370. It states that the President may by notification declare that the article shall cease to be operative provided that it is confirmed by the Constituent Assembly of the State before the President issues such notification. It says that only with the prior consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K the Presidential order will be valid. But the Constituent Assembly framed the state’s Constitution and got dissolved. How then must we interpret Article 370 (3) if the literal interpretation is not useful? If we read it in terms of its legislative history, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar who introduced the provision in the Constituent Assembly of India on October 17, 1949 states: “We have also agreed that the will of the people through the instrument of the  Constituent Assembly will determine the Constitution of the State as well as the sphere of Union jurisdiction over the State…the President may, on the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly, issue an Order that this Article 370 shall either cease to be operative, or shall be operative only subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified by him. But before he issued any order of that kind, the recommendation of that Constituent Assembly will be a condition precedent.”

In the present scenario, J&K has been represented by a Governor, appointed by the Centre, one who is of course an unelected representative of the state, while Parliament has ventured to ratify the conversion of a state into two Union Territories without any recommendation from the state.

Well then, there has been a ‘selective reading’ and understanding of the Article 370 (3). In the present scenario, J&K has been represented by a Governor, appointed by the Centre, one who is of course an unelected representative of the state, while Parliament has ventured to ratify the conversion of a state into two Union Territories without any recommendation from the state.

In the meantime, across the borders, the joint session of Pakistan’s parliament resumed to discuss the country’s future in the wake of India’s decision to revoke Article 370 of its Constitution. The premier began by saying, “This session is not only important for the Kashmiri people and the Pakistani people, but it will have repercussions around the world…”

He went on to add, “They (Indian forces) will now crack down even harder on the Kashmiri people. They will try to suppress the Kashmiri resistance with brute force. I fear that they may initiate ethnic cleansing in Kashmir to wipe out the local population. With an approach of this nature, incidents like Pulwama are bound to happen again. I can already predict this will happen. They will attempt to place the blame on us again. They may strike us again and we will strike back.”

With this fear looming large in Pakistan, Imran Khan came under immense pressure and criticism from the Opposition with the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly, Shahbaz Sharif, speaking out, “Is this not a massive failure of our foreign policy?”

Following Sharif’s speech, the prime minister walked out of the parliament before PPP chairman, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari could deliver his address.

Following Sharif’s speech, the prime minister walked out of the parliament before PPP chairman, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari could deliver his address. That there are concerns among politicians in Pakistan was amply evident from the debates and parliamentary proceedings that seemed to urge Imran Khan to take a strong stand on the matter before the global community.

Following Sharif’s speech, the prime minister walked out of the parliament before PPP chairman, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari could deliver his address.

The Kashmir stand by the government has sent ripples across the world with even China condemning this move and calling it a ‘violation of territorial sovereignty’. As Kashmir remained incommunicado (with its internet, cellphone and landline networks shut) to the world while its destiny was being decided by a handful of saffron brigade or ‘Bhagwas’, social media users showed some solidarity with the Kashmiris using hashtags such as #RedForKashmir #BleedForKashmir #StandWithKashmir #KashmirUnderThreat.

The larger question is: how democratic is this move, and how ‘Constitutional’?

Photos from the Internet