Date: 16/04/2019


Separatists of Kashmir and the terrorists, may be in favor of retaining 35A and Article 370, and they may threat Indian Government on that, is natural for them, because they do not believe in democracy, they do not believe in human rights and they do not believe in any constitutional provisions. They are gone case.

But what is about Mufti Mehbuba, Farukh Abdulla, Omar Abdulla and the leaders of Maha Gath Bandhans inclusive of Congis? They either are silent or they are in favor to retain them.

This is only because, they are all communal basically. They are communal by their heart.

Not only this, but these leaders are non-democratic. We all know very well that Congi's leaders and especially Nehruvian dynastic leaders have proved it in a big way that they are autocrat. Their top leader ("top" by virtue of his post)is openly and confidently announcing that if his party would come to power, he would put Narendra Modi in jail.

For Congi leaders, it is natural to put their opponents into jail by any means. Their supporter too have the same culture.

e.g. Mamata provides the good examples of her autocracy where she has created anarchy in law and order, and also constitution anarchy, in West Bengal. As for Communists, their ideology is not linked with any principles related with the the capture of power and then to retain the power.

The word "Congress" itself, has become a symbol of, not only devaluation of democracy, but it is also a symbol of, naked communal and Anti-national mindset.

MK Gandhi could foresee this in 1947. He asked to dissolve Congress. Congress itself should be dissolved. Congress may be named as Socialistic Congress, Nationalist Congress, Troon Mool Congress, or whatsoever you name it.. Because none of these Congress has political values and faith in democracy.

You may have difference of opinion. But it is on record, that on 09-10-1947, MK Gandhi had opined "Kashmir cannot remain independent. It cannot join with Pakistan, because Pakistan's policy is extremely worst (it is formed on communal base). Kashmir must join with India.

MK Gandhi told to Sardar Patel, that to help Kashmir including military help, is our duty (Dharm).

The Article 370 and 35A are all After Thoughts of Nehru. Neither Sardar nor Gandhi nor any body else of comparable level leader had played any role. Article 370 and Section 35A has neither any relevance in democracy nor with democracy. In a democratic country and for those who say that they are committed to democracy, the Article 370 and section 35A is null and void.

Any law which discriminate the humans, is null and void in democracy. Article 370 and Section 35A are communal and discriminate humans, thereby they are null and void. Either SC or the President can "put them aside" by an order.

Neither separatists nor the Congis have courage to come for discussion in logical way.. They are simply making emotional noise.

They are liable to go to jail.


Another e-mail:



An excellent posting from another group. THIS SORT OF DISCUSSION WILL NEVER APPEAR



Annul Article 35A: This Article has crushed economic development, and a lot more, in Jammu and Kashmir

15 April 2019

[The basis of Article 35A and Article 370 is to protect J&K’s demography. But from what? The rest of India? From non-Muslims? 35A is based purely on discrimination. Imagine if such an Act existed in the rest of the country]

Too much emotion and too little logic surround arguments around Article 35A of the Indian Constitution.

Unlike Article 370, Article 35A appears in Appendix 1 of the Constitution. Article 35A was inserted by a Presidential proclamation — not by an Act of Parliament. It can be annulled by a Presidential order. Approval of Parliament was not sought to insert it; approval of Parliament is not necessary to annul it.

As senior Supreme Court advocate, Mahesh Jethmalani, wrote recently: “The argument about the inviolability of Article 35A is untenable. Article 35A was introduced into the Constitution by way of an amendment carried out by virtue of a Presidential Order of 1954. The President has no power to amend the Constitution; the constituent power, post the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, vests in Parliament by virtue of Article 368. Article 35A is thus void on the face of it.”

Beyond this irrefutable fact lies feudal politics and economic self-interest. Article 35A does not allow citizens from outside the state to own property in J&K. Non-J&K Indian citizens can’t get permanent residency in the state. Indian citizens from outside J&K aren’t allowed admission to schools and colleges in the state. Indian citizens, again from outside J&K, cannot take employment in the state.

Worse, SC/ST workers who were brought in to J&K in the 1950s, on the solemn promise that they would be given permanent residency status in the state have, 60 years and three generations later, still not received residency in J&K.

Not a single Dalit leader — not Mayawati, not Prakash Ambedkar — has condemned this injustice to SC/ST migrants in J&K.

Under Article 35A, women who marry non-J&K Indian citizens automatically lose their property and residential rights in the state. Feminists have been notably silent on this gross gender injustice.

By placing the state under a metaphorical veil, J&K’s economic development has suffered grievously. On a visit to Srinagar, I asked the general manager of the hotel I was staying at about why the state, a haven for tourists, had relatively few top class hotels and even fewer industries.

He shrugged resignedly.. “Terrorism is obviously one reason but the bigger one is self-isolation. An infotech firm wanted to invest in the state but the restrictions on employment and education of skilled workers brought in from the rest of India is a dampener.”

With its climate, J&K could be a world-class centre for pharmaceutical R&D, medical labs, data warehousing, infotech, artificial intelligence and a host of new-economy ventures, including next-generation startups and tech firms.

Instead, caught in 35A’s stranglehold, J&K remains stuck in the 1970s, even as the rest of India races ahead on the way to becoming the world’s third largest economy by 2030.

This self-imprisonment consigns generation after generation of local Kashmiris to lives of economic mediocrity. When the occasional bright spark like IAS topper Shah Faesal emerges, he is drawn into the vortex of lucrative 'separatist-led politics'.

A handful of feudal political families have amassed great wealth while J&K’s residents live off Indian taxpayers’ handouts, amounting to more than Rs 25,000 crore a year. Without that financial support, even the salaries of J&K’s states employees would be difficult to pay.

[COMMENT : Please read -]

A secular state?

The most serious infirmity in Article 35A is also the most damaging — majoritarianism.

The basis of Article 35A and Article 370 is to protect J&K’s demography.

What is that demography?

Sheikh Abdullah told Jawaharlal Nehru in November 1949, two months before the Indian Constitution came into force, that a Muslim-majority state like J&K should have special protection and special status.

Special protection from whom?

The rest of India?

Special status on the basis of what?

Religious identity?

Both propositions are outrageous.

J&K needs development, not protection. Using Muslim majoritarianism to justify special status is as toxic as the rest of India using Hindu majoritarianism to deny minorities their rights. Indeed, the Indian Constitution gives minorities and their personal laws even more protection than it gives the majority.

In a secular country, majoritarianism based on religion is retrograde and unacceptable everywhere — including in J&K.

Article 370 was regarded as so treacherous by Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, head of the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution, that he opposed fiercely the attempt by Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah to push it through in the draft Constitution in November 1949.


"You wish India should protect your borders, she should build roads in your area, she should supply you food grains, and Kashmir should get equal status as India. But Government of India should have only limited powers and Indian people should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this proposal, would be a treacherous thing against the interests of Indiaand I, as the Law Minister of India, will never do it."
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to Sheikh Abdullah on Article 370]

Sardar Vallabbhai Patel too opposed the inclusion of Article 370 in the Constitution, but out of loyalty to Nehru and in order to preserve unity in an emerging Republic, felt compelled to go along with it — however, he inserted the words “temporary and transient” to make sure the discriminatory Article (as Ambedkar termed it) did not become a permanent wedge between J&K and the rest of India.

It did.

Patel died in 1950, Ambedkar in 1956.

Article 370 lives on — alienating Kashmir from the rest of India and allowing Pakistan to make the Valley a breeding ground for Wahhabi terrorism and radicalisation.

While repealing Article 370 needs the approval of the J&K assembly — unlikely in the foreseeable future — Article 35A, which holds J&K’s economic development to ransom, can be annulled by a Presidential order. Parliamentary approval is unnecessary. The annulment will unshackle J&K from its self-imposed economic chains.

Who will benefit? The people of J&K.

Who will lose out? Feudal families like the Abdullahs and Muftis who have cynically used Articles 370 and 35A to retain political power — and the accoutrements that go with it — at the cost of the average Kashmiri.

The agitated reaction of Mehbooba Mufti and other Kashmiri politicians over the possibility of the government revoking Article 35A reflects their fear of dispossession.

What about former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s threat of the state reverting to its pre-1953 status with two prime ministers in India if Articles 370 and 35A were revoked?Abdullah’s threat should be dismissed as posturing by a feudal political dynast who benefits from keeping J&K a restricted fief.

Dr Ambedkar despised Article 370 but could not resist pressure from Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah to include it in the Constitution. It has, over the years, been progressively eroded. Given the legislative difficulty of abrogating it, “creeping erosion” will eventually make it infructious.

However, for the sake of the people of J&K and their future prosperity, Article 35A must no longer be allowed to hold J&K’s economic development to ransom.

It can — and should — go.