The scrapping of Article 370 of the Constitution and the bifurcation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and that of Ladakh is indeed historic, as it has been made out to be. But, whether this will turn out to be a historic decision or a historic blunder, we will learn some day in the future when history deigns to let us know.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir who woke up on Monday morning with special privileges went to sleep that night without them. For now, the special status that the northern State enjoyed since Independence has been revoked with the scrapping of Article 370. It is now a union territory – two union territories – with the Centre having complete control over the affairs of both. While Jammu and Kashmir will have a legislature and a government and a chief minister just like Delhi has and Goa had when it was a Union Territory, Ladakh won’t have a legislature, and will be governed in the manner that Daman and Diu are currently administered.
It perhaps was time that the issue of Jammu and Kashmir was looked into again. The State, though geographically and politically a part of India, was never integrated with the rest of the country, due to the special status in the form of Article 370 that it enjoyed. But, in getting Jammu and Kashmir to unite with the rest of India, it was divided and its Statehood taken away. Was this – creating two Union Territories – really necessary to solve the J&K issue?
Sweeping changes such as these that have been brought in require time for deliberation. There was no discussion, no debate, no prior intimation of the government’s plan for the State. This is not democracy at work that was seen when Article 370 was scrapped. Surely the government didn’t decide on making these amendments overnight, all this had been planned. So why wasn’t Parliament given a chance to debate it over a period of time, rather than rushing it all in one day? Why weren’t the people of Jammu and Kashmir allowed to know what future was being planned for them? We live in a democracy and the people have the right to know when there are modifications that will have far-reaching consequences being planned for their lives.
The government majority in the Lok Sabha should not be utilised to steam roll the opposition into submission. Those who have their dissenting views on a particular legislation should be allowed to voice them, and the debate should be held during a reasonable amount of time and with all democratic practices. The government has the numbers in the Lok Sabha, so had the Bills and Resolutions been introduced at the beginning of the session and the vote taken on any day during or on the last day of the session it would still have been passed. The rush in propelling the changes through Parliament should have been avoided. Had democratic norms of debate and discussion been followed in letter and spirit, it would have given the passage of the Bills and Resolutions more respectability.
The government may claim that this move will see the end of terrorism, but then can we really be sure of this? A large section has rejoiced, but there will also be resentment. Insurgency from across the border could intensify. Kashmir is one of the most militarised zones in the world. The success of this move depends on the government reducing the military forces here and being able to bring peace in the region. If that doesn’t happen, then would this historic move be a triumph?
