Paramilitary build-up in Kashmir ahead of Independence Day has triggered rumours about the Centre preparing to scrap Article 35A concerning special rights of permanent residents. Modi government must speak unambiguously and end all speculation and fearmongering. In conflict-ridden state like J&K, the government’s action should leave no room for misinterpretation.
India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.
Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.
Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.
As a schoolboy, I felt the abolition of privy purses was wrong. The princes had three choices : India, Pakistan or independence. It is a tribute to the Congress leadership – Sardar Patel deserves a lot of credit, but not all of it – that we ended up with a contiguous map. A solemn covenant was signed with the princes, a handful of privileges, modest annuities. A sovereign nation should not have broken its word. 2. Now come to the accession of Kashmir, agreed to by a Hindu Raja with a Muslim majority population. A principle India did not accept for Hyderabad and Junagarh. He signed the document when his state was under invasion. A plebiscite was promised, but that is now history. Article 370 – of which Article 35 A is a logical corollary – is a solemn covenant by which India accepted the uniqueness of Kashmir’s position in the Union. Drawing a distinction between 370 and 35 A in terms of the procedure by which they were brought into force is pure semantics. To say that 370 was a transient provision, suited to the exigencies of the moment, reflects the thinking behind the abolition of Privy Purses. What it will contribute to winning the hearts and minds of the Kashmiri people is difficult to judge.
A very poor commentary. The way 35 A was manoeuvred is a mockery. It is a conspiracy of sorts. Removal of the same will pave the way for winning the hearts and minds of the people of Kashmir and India.
As a schoolboy, I felt the abolition of privy purses was wrong. The princes had three choices : India, Pakistan or independence. It is a tribute to the Congress leadership – Sardar Patel deserves a lot of credit, but not all of it – that we ended up with a contiguous map. A solemn covenant was signed with the princes, a handful of privileges, modest annuities. A sovereign nation should not have broken its word. 2. Now come to the accession of Kashmir, agreed to by a Hindu Raja with a Muslim majority population. A principle India did not accept for Hyderabad and Junagarh. He signed the document when his state was under invasion. A plebiscite was promised, but that is now history. Article 370 – of which Article 35 A is a logical corollary – is a solemn covenant by which India accepted the uniqueness of Kashmir’s position in the Union. Drawing a distinction between 370 and 35 A in terms of the procedure by which they were brought into force is pure semantics. To say that 370 was a transient provision, suited to the exigencies of the moment, reflects the thinking behind the abolition of Privy Purses. What it will contribute to winning the hearts and minds of the Kashmiri people is difficult to judge.
A very poor commentary. The way 35 A was manoeuvred is a mockery. It is a conspiracy of sorts. Removal of the same will pave the way for winning the hearts and minds of the people of Kashmir and India.
As a schoolboy, I felt the abolition of privy purses was wrong. The princes had three choices : India, Pakistan or independence. It is a tribute to the Congress leadership – Sardar Patel deserves a lot of credit, but not all of it – that we ended up with a contiguous map. A solemn covenant was signed with the princes, a handful of privileges, modest annuities. A sovereign nation should not have broken its word. 2. Now come to the accession of Kashmir, agreed to by a Hindu Raja with a Muslim majority population. A principle India did not accept for Hyderabad and Junagarh. He signed the document when his state was under invasion. A plebiscite was promised, but that is now history. Article 370 – of which Article 35 A is a logical corollary – is a solemn covenant by which India accepted the uniqueness of Kashmir’s position in the Union. Drawing a distinction between 370 and 35 A in terms of the procedure by which they were brought into force is pure semantics. To say that 370 was a transient provision, suited to the exigencies of the moment, reflects the thinking behind the abolition of Privy Purses. What it will contribute to winning the hearts and minds of the Kashmiri people is difficult to judge.
A very poor commentary. The way 35 A was manoeuvred is a mockery. It is a conspiracy of sorts. Removal of the same will pave the way for winning the hearts and minds of the people of Kashmir and India.