DNA Edit: History Made - The abrogation of Article 370 is a landmark, post 1947

When Jammu and Kashmir’s merger into the Indian Union became a reality post-Independence, it was mostly greeted in good cheer. The lone voice of dissent came from the founder of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), Syama Prasad Mukherjee, a minister in Independent India’s first Cabinet.

He bitterly opposed Article 370, which accorded special status to Jammu and Kashmir. He questioned why Jammu and Kashmir was kept out of the President’s jurisdiction and why the Congress agreed to the need of a special permit to enter the state.

Then came related queries; why did the state have a ‘sadar-e-riyasat’ instead of governors and a Prime Minister instead of chief ministers, as was the norm in the other states? The BJS slogan — Ek desh mein do Vidhan, do Pradhan aur do Nishan nahi chalenge (There cannot be two Constitutions, two Prime Ministers and two flags in one nation) — gained instant coinage. In the heyday of Jawaharlal Nehru’s charismatic presence, Mukherjee was the lone voice, without too many supporters.

Today, in contrast, except one voice from the Congress, it is the BJP, which is the principle pole in politics, turning the tables in a way that would have few parallels in history. While Mukherjee laid down his life to make the point about integrating Kashmir with India, in what seemed like a lost cause then, his soul must be heaving a sigh of relief.

Back in 1947, it would have needed an astrologer of extraordinary ability to predict that by 2019, Article 370 would be removed by a Presidential Order and that through a J&K Reorganisation Bill, the state would be bifurcated into two Union Territories and that Article 35A would stand annulled. While there have been debates galore about the so-called permanent status of Article 370, the fact is that it was included in the transitional provisions of the Constitution of India and was therefore, presumed to be of transitory nature.

Indeed, provisions were incorporated in Article 370 by virtue of which the President of India was empowered to modify or terminate the operation of its provisions by a notification, which is what has been done.  The President, empowered to extend the application of the provisions of the Constitution of India to the state by an order issued by him, has followed the rule book.

Presumably, the temporary provisions, envisaged by Article 370, were meant to remain in operation only so long as the Constituent Assembly of the state completed its task. Evidently, the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution could not have visualised a perpetual Constituent Assembly for Jammu and Kashmir, or any other state.

The fact is that the controversial article was tied intrinsically to the life and times of the trouble-torn state for almost 70 years. In scrapping it, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his team have virtually changed the map of Jammu and Kashmir. By displaying guts, the ruling party has received wide political support in the Parliament.

There is no shortage of political backing in the country, with parties as far removed as the BJD and AAP joining the chorus of approval for the government action. Yet, like any true democracy, there is bound to be opposition. For the mainstream political parties in the Valley, the decision to finish Article 370 is a gigantic setback; their well-oiled family machines have been left rusty in one stroke. They deserve what they have got, given their ambivalence over the Kashmir issue. But as a mature republic, India must not unduly worry about their opposition, given that it was their bread and butter over all these years.

What New Delhi must strive to achieve with this decision is to try and build bridges with the people in the Valley. It is time to recall the great sacrifices made by local policemen guarding India’s interests there, as well as the thousands of security personnel and common civilians, who have laid down their lives.

The government needs to work overtime to ensure that the ordinary citizens see merit in the development. After all, they and not the oligarchs in the state, have been caught in the cross-fire between the security forces and the militants and it is they who have paid the price for political pussyfooting. This is easier said than done though and grave challenges lie ahead.

The narrative will be woven around the issue of religion. Vested interests, more than keen to keep the Kashmir cauldron burning, would try and inflame passions and ensure peace becomes a casualty. India has to respond with maturity and magnanimity. It has to serve the twin planks of peace and development as the main course of its planned integration.

New Delhi needs to ensure that the moment doesn’t get vitiated by vested interests — and there are many — who are keen to show the decision in bad light. Since the Kashmir issue evokes passion across the border as well, India will have to carefully assess its planks vis-à-vis Pakistan. Islamabad has announced that, along with Kashmiris, it will not accept the abrogation of Article 370, saying it would be a violation of UN resolutions. Security forces, therefore, have to be on high alert, foiling any attempted misadventures by regular or non-state forces.