Article 370 Removal: Right or Wrong? | Explained by Dhruv Rathee

Summary

In this video, the speaker discusses the historic revocation of Article 370, which granted Jammu and Kashmir special autonomy. They present both sides of the debate: supporters argue the move will boost economic growth, job creation, and integration with India, while critics condemn the lack of consultation with the people of Kashmir and warn of the potential for long-term instability. The speaker shares their own opinion, supporting the removal of Article 370 for its potential benefits but criticizing the undemocratic manner in which the decision was made. Ultimately, the speaker calls for a balanced approach to ensure lasting peace and development in the region.

Takeaways

• 😀 Article 370 granted Jammu and Kashmir special status, including a separate constitution, flag, and restrictions on land ownership by non-residents.
• 😀 The revocation of Article 370 has removed these special provisions, allowing people from other states to buy land, apply for jobs, and access educational scholarships in Kashmir.
• 😀 Supporters argue that this decision will lead to economic development by attracting investment, creating jobs, and raising land prices in Kashmir.
• 😀 Increased job opportunities and development in Kashmir are expected to reduce poverty, unemployment, and potentially the influence of terrorism.
• 😀 The removal of Article 370 is seen as a move toward greater integration of Kashmir with India, fostering national unity through a single constitution and flag.
• 😀 One of the key advantages cited by supporters is that the decision may help Kashmiri Pandits, who fled in the 1990s, to return to Kashmir.
• 😀 Opponents argue that the decision was made without consulting the people of Kashmir, calling it undemocratic and an illegal occupation.
• 😀 Critics argue that the revocation was unconstitutional, as it was done when the Jammu and Kashmir assembly was dissolved and without proper democratic consultation.
• 😀 Some separatists claim that removing Article 370 weakens the legal basis for Kashmir's relationship with India, possibly escalating tensions internationally and domestically.
• 😀 The decision to turn Jammu and Kashmir into a Union Territory has led to concerns about diminishing democratic rights and increasing central government control over the region.

Q & A

What does the revocation of Article 370 mean for Jammu and Kashmir?

The revocation of Article 370 means that Jammu and Kashmir no longer has special status within India. It will no longer have a separate constitution or flag, and citizens from other parts of India can now buy property, apply for jobs, and avail scholarships in the region.

Was the revocation of Article 370 done constitutionally?

The revocation of Article 370 was technically done through a Presidential order, which used a clause in the article that allows for it to be declared null and void. However, the legality of the decision has been contested by some, with arguments that it was done without proper consultation with the people of Jammu and Kashmir, as the state assembly was dissolved and the region was under President’s rule.

How did supporters of the revocation justify their stance?

Supporters believe that revoking Article 370 would lead to economic development in Jammu and Kashmir by encouraging investment, creating job opportunities, and reducing terrorism and crime. They argue that Kashmiris will benefit from being included in Indian laws, including the Right to Education and Right to Information.

What are the main arguments of those who oppose the revocation of Article 370?

Opponents argue that the decision was taken without consulting the Kashmiri people, which they view as a form of illegal occupation. They also claim that it is unconstitutional, as it used a loophole to bypass the need for the state's consent. Some also believe that the move risks escalating tensions and turning Kashmir into a military-occupied region.

What is the significance of Article 35A in the context of Article 370?

Article 35A defined the permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir and provided them exclusive rights, such as the ability to own land, apply for government jobs, and avail scholarships. With the revocation of Article 370, Article 35A effectively disintegrates, removing these privileges for Kashmir's residents.

How does the revocation affect the governance of Jammu and Kashmir?

The revocation led to Jammu and Kashmir being reorganized into a Union Territory, which means it no longer has the autonomy it had as a state. The central government has greater control, and the state assembly has been dissolved, meaning local governance is significantly reduced.

Why is the manner in which Article 370 was revoked controversial?

The controversy lies in the fact that the revocation was done without the consultation of the people or their elected representatives. Critics argue that the decision was imposed under military presence, with communication blocked and leaders placed under house arrest, which they see as undemocratic and authoritarian.

What does the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territories mean for its people?

Making Jammu and Kashmir a Union Territory, with Ladakh as a separate one, means reduced political autonomy and less democratic power for its people. Local governments can now only exercise limited authority, and the central government holds more control, which may create conflicts between the state and the central government.

What is the opinion of the script’s author on the revocation of Article 370?

The author supports the removal of Article 370 for the potential economic benefits and greater integration of Kashmir with India. However, they express strong disapproval of how it was carried out, without consulting the Kashmiri people or their political representatives, which they believe will complicate the process of integration.

What are the potential long-term effects of the revocation on Kashmir?

The long-term effects are uncertain. While some hope it will bring economic prosperity and peace, others fear it could increase alienation and resistance if the local population does not accept the change. Successful integration requires the support of Kashmiris, and failure to win their hearts and minds could hinder peace and development.