Nehru did what was correct back in 1947. This was the only condition under which Kashmir would have "joined" India. The choice was either to accept it or risk losing it. In fact, both him and SVP were actually content in letting Kashmir decide for itself.
Kashmir
- Thread starter 2cents
- Start date
Umm, these were made laws in 54 I guess? 7 years later not in 47.
Does it change anything?
What?? Never. Kashmiri through and through.
It was not the condition Kashmir joined India. In fact there was no condition at the time of accession by the ruler. After nehru screwed up by going to UN in the middle of the war after accession the then leader blackmailed him for his selfish political agenda and to appease him it was added by presidential order as a temporary measure without passing it in parliament.
Generations to those families are beneficiaries of that article till this date financially through corruption .
And that is why It is very highly unlikely that court will even entertain their case. Ofcourse any sane person can challenge this to the court as they have the locus standi.
I'd assume Kashmiri parties would be obligated to challenge this.Only if those who want to make mockery of themselves can try to appeal.
It's been passed and debated by assembly in both the houses. One who drafts the bills are not some random rookie who will draft an unconstitutional bill.
Shock horror a national leader went to the UN to stop violence and resolve the issue via peace. And here is the full text of the accession. You may as well want to educate yourself and peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.
Great attempt to stop the violence in middle of a war and effectively planting the roots of never ending violence.
"In the middle of a war, keep fighting without looking for a ceasefire." - Patrick08, 05/08/2019.
Not when you are winning
your own area and people back.If that's the case, we may as well ask the people of Kashmir what they want - Their people and their Constituent Assembly. We may finally have the answet then. No reason to orchestrate curfews and blackouts, innit?Not when you are winning
Can you ask the people of 600 plus something acceded states, or now all the states what they want?
And its not an act of parliament. It was a presidential order. They changed the word "constituent assembly" to "legislative assembly". And art 370 has not been scrapped. Its all very technical.
Last edited:
My interpretation is correct because i just saw that they amended the constitution to change constituent assembly to legislative assembly. Now consent is no longer required from the constituent assembly but rather from the state legislative assembly. Since the state legislative assembly is not functioning and its role has been temporarily taken by the governor so his assent is sufficient.
See this -> http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/210049.pdf
Last edited:
Provisions under 35 A have all been. By parliamentary vote in one house.
And its not an act of parliament. It was a presidential order. The bills changed the word "constituent assembly" to "legislative assembly". And art 370 has not been scrapped. Its all very technical.
Because of this -> http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/210049.pdf <- 35A ceased to exist even before any bill was tabled in parliament and this is a presidential order, not an act of parliament.
Anyways the point is that the supreme court has the power to set aside both if it wishes to.
No it didn't.
Reorganization of the state is an act of parliament passed by voting majority as far I received the news.
35A said boundary of j&k cannot be changed without approval from j&k state legislature. Presidential order removed 35A.
35A was inserted through a presidential order in 1954, the pdf i have posted clearly mentions that that 1954 presidential order has been repealed.
News people are also saying 370 has been repealed when it hasn't. Ive said enough on this topic, legal procedural technicalities is not for everyone.
He has not said anything which goes contrary to what ive said.
He categorically says "reorganizing the territories of J&K is legally a separate issue" from 3:00 onwards.
I'll make this simple for you:
1. Parliament cannot legally reorganize J&K i.e. bifurcate and change its status from State to UT until and unless 35A is repealed.
2. Now why is 35A important in this aspect ? See below.
3. 35A was inserted by 1954 presidential order which included the following ["Provided further that no Bill providing for increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State."]
3. Therefore the parliament could not have introduced the bill to bifurcate and change its status without first repealing it.
4. Now the 1954 presidential order which brought in 35A was repealed through another presidential order which was passed yesterday and i have posted above.
5. Presidential order is not an act of parliament.
Reorganising and 4 tabled bills after that are.
. They passed it from voting.Reorganizing is a separate issue from 35A which is passed by parliamentary vote effectively giving law and order situation in centre's hand than states by carving out UT.
Last edited:
Without the presidential order all those bills are useless even if they got 100% votes.Reorganising and 4 tabled bills after that are.
Reorganizing is a separate issue from 35A which is passed by parliamentary vote effectively giving law and order situation in centre's hand than states by carving out UT.
1. All laws and constitution of India apply to J&K because of presidential order
2. Special rights of residents of J&K got taken away because of presidential order
3. Boundary of J&K can be changed like any other part of India because of presidential order.
Reorganizing is an act of parliament. Now what is reorganizing ? It is the bifurcation of J&K and it is the changing of its status from a "State" to a "Union Territory". What it is not is the above three points. You are mixing them.
Last edited:
Think one of the issues that will decide this to what extent can Constitution be amended via presidential orders. More particularly can Art.367 be amended via a Presidential Order? If so, to what extent?
Personally, I don't think the issue is as clear cut as you think it is.
It wasn't the condition. That's what the video explains. Accession happened in October 1947 for all princely states including J&K. Sheikh Abdullah brought up special provision request in 1949 when constitution was being finalized. There was no need for Nehru to entertain that request.
If he hadn't entertained that request and lost Kashmir, you would have been berating him again in 2019, that he gifted Kashmir to Pakistan.
No it didn't initiate or at least was not binding point to initiate article 370. When Hari Singh agreed to accession, J&K became part of India. Ambedkar had refused to add the article and if not for snake Nehru it wouldn't have been part of constitution. Anyway well done for those who added 'temporary and transient' clause. All it needed was a government with will to make it inactive..which took 70+ years.
And why exactly he would have lost Kashmir? If that idiot didn't go to UN, whole Kashmir would have been with India. At that time there was nothing 'disputed' about J&K and going to UN was shooting oneself in foot.
It is literally stated in the text and you are disputing the same written text 70 years later.
Ambedkar didn't do shit. He just refused to take part in drawing up the constitution. I know which quote you are going to post to counter this and that has already proven to be fake, so don't waste time.
The instrument of accession protected Hari Singh's rights as a sovereign. It didn't speak as to what came after. There's a reason why the astute brain that was BR Ambedkar was dead against these. Note also that this remained a "temporary" provision. If it is so essential to accession and so set in stone, I'd love to hear your explanation for both these.
The simple reason to go to UN that time was due to the war happening between India and Pakistan.
It is literally stated in the text and you are disputing the same written text 70 years later.
Ambedkar didn't do shit. He just refused to take part in drawing up the constitution. I know which quote you are going to post to counter this and that has already proven to be fake, so do waste time.
You really are naive or better are clutching at straws if you think that point makes any difference. This is what Hari Singh wrote when he requested India's help and which effectively makes J&K part of India:“
What quote? You are trying too hard without any logic. There was no need to add article 370, simples. We have anyway corrected snake's mistake though. Too bad it took this much of time.
Yeah and why you need to go to UN when J&K has agreed to accession? Tomorrow some more countries will invade, and right way is to go to a spineless and useless organization like UN who will do nothing but declare status quo and there will be more LoC inside India, right?
Lost on what grounds? It acceded willingly. They acted unilaterally without passing it through parliament via precedential order.
Funny how you conveniently ignore the full text and only post a part of it to suit your agenda. Talk about clutching at straws, eh.
“
What quote? You are trying too hard without any logic. There was no need to add article 370, simples. We have anyway corrected snake's mistake though. Too bad it took this much of time.
I hope you have your war pads for PoK ready by that time and not just your internet.
Last edited:
Let me make it simple for you. Why don't you take the point 7 and challenge this president order based on that?Oh it will be. And then we all will laugh on your posts like we did after demonetisation.
let's see. There will be challenges for sure but nobody is going to take it up based on that generic point you are going on about. It is enjoyable seeing you guys so butthurt. It's lovely.No one is butthurt about it. What people are questioning is the way this happened. It sets a precedent and gives them a choice of steamrolling and state of assembly to further their agenda. Unsurprised that this clouds your lone brain cell given your allegiance. Shouldn't be a surprise given how adamant you were (are?) that demonetisation was a success.