People are making this too big an issue. It's about Indian Kashmir. Currently rest of the country can't buy land there, can't invest etc. How's that good for integration.
With 370 gone. Rest of India will be able to invest in Kashmir (Indian Kashmir).
Edit:
I gathered more information. This is quite beneficial for Kashmiris. Like really beneficial. Some of their new rights
- RTI (Right to Information)
- State elections every 5 years
- Reservations for minorities
- Special oversight and power of President in case of emergency
Not to mention biggest benefit would be investment from everywhere that will flourish the people.
The issue is with the manner in which this was done. How do you think cutting off the entirety of Kashmir from internet, and making tourists/pilgrims evacuate the valley looks like?
This just resembles a coup. The people of Kashmir are unable to voice their opinions.
The article in [0] contains a very clear explanation of how the government was able to do this.
While it's technically legal, Article 370 had a provision that required the "recommendation from the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir". But by imposing president's (central) rule, they were able to bypass this provision and abrogate the article unilaterally.
I have travelled to India often but I don't understand Indian politics enough. So if someone here can help me with these questions, I'll appreciate it!
* What does it mean for Lakadh to not have a legislature? Does it mean that this province cannot have elected local leaders?
* Why are the prominent politicians under house arrest? What is their offence?
I only speak of what I know (which may not be correct)
* What does it mean for Lakadh to not have a legislature? Does it mean that this province cannot have elect local leaders?
> I think this means that they will not have legislative power in the government (aka similar to USVI or Puerto Rico in the US)
* Why are the prominent politicians under house arrest? What is their offence?
> I believe this is mostly to silence them to not agitate people. Also, these articles are widely misused and politicians amassed a lot of land since no outsiders can hold land in the area.
* Why were these two articles repealed?
> This is partly for political as well as some economical. Since no one can own a property or land in Jammy & Kashmir other than its residents, economy growth is much smaller in Kasmir than the rest of India and it helps boost Kasmir's economy. The political reason might be that the BJP government wants more power in the area.
>What does it mean for Lakadh to not have a legislature? Does it mean that this province cannot have elected local leaders?
India has a few 'union territories' already. They send elected representatives to the Lok Sabha (the lower house / house of representatives equivalent). The new Ladakh UT, will also do the same.
> Why are the prominent politicians under house arrest? What is their offence?
They are prominent local leaders, and the center wants to avoid them from leading civil unrest.
> Why were these two articles repealed?
Any answer to this question is broad over simplification. I'll try to give my most un-biased opinion.
- The status quo was perceived as not working in resolving Kashmir's status since the last 70+ years. It didn't improve for India, Kashmiris or Pakistan who stake claim.
- It increases the leverage India has for any future solution of Kashmir.
- It would reduce the barriers of Kashmir's integration with rest of India.
> Does it mean that this province cannot have elected local leaders?
They will have no locally elected representatives in the local government. However they will still elect a Member of Parliament who will represent them in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Indian Parliament).
I'll try to answer your questions. I may be partially wrong on some points.
* India has multiple levels of government - village, district, state, centre. Now Ladakh will not have any state government as such. All the responsibilities will be handled by a Lt. Governor appointment by the center. It makes sense because Ladakh is very sparsely populated and the state legislature would have very few legislators to be effective. People would continue to vote in village, district, and central leaders.
* Since Article 370 and 35a were in place, nobody else (except people of the state) could buy land. Subsequently there is very little industialization, and investment. These leaders amassed lots of land and wealth. They would do anything to keep it, including fomenting violence. They were placed under house arrest to stop this.
1 - Yes it will work like other UTs.
2 - To avoid nuisance and violence. To avoid future offence. P.S. A precautionary measure to keep the state in peace.
3 - Because they kept this state departed from India. Now its one nation one constitution one flag.
There are both sided opionions but overall this decision is liked by Indians + Ladakhis no idea of kashmiris. Jammu people have liked this.
Central Government amended Article 367 of the Constitution to add new interpretations, by which the Presidential order to abrogate Article 370 and 35A becomes valid.
Basically, the Central Government brought in an amendment, asked the Governor of the State (appointed by the Central Government), who then recommended the President for the same and he just signed it.
> The presidential order also added new "interpretations" to the Article 367 of the Constitution. By the new interpretation, the phrase "[Governor of the State] acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office" is to be understood simply as the Governor of the State. All references to the State Government shall mean the Governor. The reference to the "Constituent Assembly" has also been amended to mean the "Legislative Assembly of the State"
> To article 367, there shall be added the following clause, namely:—
“(4) For the purposes of this Constitution as it applies in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir—
(a) references to this Constitution or to the provisions thereof shall be construed as references to the Constitution or the provisions thereof as applied in relation to the said State;
(b) references to the person for the time being recognized by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadar-i-Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office, shall be construed as references to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir;
(c) references to the Government of the said State shall be construed as including references to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of his Council of Ministers; and
(d) in proviso to clause (3) of article 370 of this Constitution, the expression “Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2)” shall read “Legislative Assembly of the State”.”
They plan to use illegal means to cease its operation. According to Article 370 in constitution:
Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify:
Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.
There is no 'Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to'
it's clearly crossing the line. two areas in disputed territory. some under pk and some under india. few under india want to join pk, but now they are occupied. will pk help people who wanted to join them since inception. time will tell
[+] [-] negamax|6 years ago|reply
With 370 gone. Rest of India will be able to invest in Kashmir (Indian Kashmir).
Edit:
I gathered more information. This is quite beneficial for Kashmiris. Like really beneficial. Some of their new rights
- RTI (Right to Information)
- State elections every 5 years
- Reservations for minorities
- Special oversight and power of President in case of emergency
Not to mention biggest benefit would be investment from everywhere that will flourish the people.
[+] [-] xrisk|6 years ago|reply
This just resembles a coup. The people of Kashmir are unable to voice their opinions.
[+] [-] sbmthakur|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] poptrex|6 years ago|reply
While it's technically legal, Article 370 had a provision that required the "recommendation from the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir". But by imposing president's (central) rule, they were able to bypass this provision and abrogate the article unilaterally.
[0] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/explaine...
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] grepgeek|6 years ago|reply
* What does it mean for Lakadh to not have a legislature? Does it mean that this province cannot have elected local leaders?
* Why are the prominent politicians under house arrest? What is their offence?
* Why were these two articles repealed?
[+] [-] spocklivelong|6 years ago|reply
* What does it mean for Lakadh to not have a legislature? Does it mean that this province cannot have elect local leaders?
> I think this means that they will not have legislative power in the government (aka similar to USVI or Puerto Rico in the US)
* Why are the prominent politicians under house arrest? What is their offence?
> I believe this is mostly to silence them to not agitate people. Also, these articles are widely misused and politicians amassed a lot of land since no outsiders can hold land in the area.
* Why were these two articles repealed?
> This is partly for political as well as some economical. Since no one can own a property or land in Jammy & Kashmir other than its residents, economy growth is much smaller in Kasmir than the rest of India and it helps boost Kasmir's economy. The political reason might be that the BJP government wants more power in the area.
[+] [-] bhaavan|6 years ago|reply
India has a few 'union territories' already. They send elected representatives to the Lok Sabha (the lower house / house of representatives equivalent). The new Ladakh UT, will also do the same.
> Why are the prominent politicians under house arrest? What is their offence?
They are prominent local leaders, and the center wants to avoid them from leading civil unrest.
> Why were these two articles repealed?
Any answer to this question is broad over simplification. I'll try to give my most un-biased opinion. - The status quo was perceived as not working in resolving Kashmir's status since the last 70+ years. It didn't improve for India, Kashmiris or Pakistan who stake claim. - It increases the leverage India has for any future solution of Kashmir. - It would reduce the barriers of Kashmir's integration with rest of India.
The desirability of above, depends on who you're.
[+] [-] kranner|6 years ago|reply
They will have no locally elected representatives in the local government. However they will still elect a Member of Parliament who will represent them in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Indian Parliament).
[+] [-] lurker_primo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] techaddict009|6 years ago|reply
1 - Yes it will work like other UTs. 2 - To avoid nuisance and violence. To avoid future offence. P.S. A precautionary measure to keep the state in peace. 3 - Because they kept this state departed from India. Now its one nation one constitution one flag.
There are both sided opionions but overall this decision is liked by Indians + Ladakhis no idea of kashmiris. Jammu people have liked this.
[+] [-] acd10j|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vms20591|6 years ago|reply
Central Government amended Article 367 of the Constitution to add new interpretations, by which the Presidential order to abrogate Article 370 and 35A becomes valid.
Basically, the Central Government brought in an amendment, asked the Governor of the State (appointed by the Central Government), who then recommended the President for the same and he just signed it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370_of_the_Constitutio...
> The presidential order also added new "interpretations" to the Article 367 of the Constitution. By the new interpretation, the phrase "[Governor of the State] acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office" is to be understood simply as the Governor of the State. All references to the State Government shall mean the Governor. The reference to the "Constituent Assembly" has also been amended to mean the "Legislative Assembly of the State"
https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/double-strike-president...
> To article 367, there shall be added the following clause, namely:—
“(4) For the purposes of this Constitution as it applies in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir—
(a) references to this Constitution or to the provisions thereof shall be construed as references to the Constitution or the provisions thereof as applied in relation to the said State;
(b) references to the person for the time being recognized by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadar-i-Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office, shall be construed as references to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir;
(c) references to the Government of the said State shall be construed as including references to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of his Council of Ministers; and
(d) in proviso to clause (3) of article 370 of this Constitution, the expression “Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2)” shall read “Legislative Assembly of the State”.”
[+] [-] kjsingh|6 years ago|reply
Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify: Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.
There is no 'Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to'
[+] [-] jsnider3|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ron_m_smith|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] techaddict009|6 years ago|reply
Unless Pak takes it personally without any reason.
[+] [-] techsin101|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sriram_malhar|6 years ago|reply