The Article 370 Debate

Roots, History and Story of Erosion

The BJP’s Prime Ministerial Candidate at a public rally in Jammu made some factually inaccurate, distorted remarks about Article 370 of the Constitution of India. Although Mr. Modi’s call for a “debate” on the Article indicated an unusual departure from the party’s traditional radical stance, this rather ‘positive development’ too was dashed on Thursday when BJP Spokesperson Vijay Sonkar Shastri stated with an unambiguous clarity that the BJP would “scrap” Article 370 if voted to power at the center. While neither BJP nor any political party can scrap Article 370, I would like to take this opportunity to counter some domestic political distortions of history in the context of the erosion of the State’s special status. I will write a few more columns about the external dimensions and narratives surrounding Article 370.  

As most of us know, Article 370 of the Constitution of India grants a certain special status to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Incorporated into the constitution by the Constituent Assembly of India in 1949, the Article was drafted by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and forms the definitive constitutional ‘bridge’ between the State of Jammu & Kashmir and the Union of India.

According to Article 370, the Indian Parliament requires the concurrence of the State Assembly for applying central laws in the State of J&K except those pertaining to defence, foreign affairs, finance and communications.

In its original form, which has hence unfortunately undergone considerable erosion due to various Presidential orders that have made most central laws applicable to J&K, the Article gave Jammu & Kashmir its own Prime Minister and ‘Sadar-e-Riyasat’, hence replaced by the nomenclatures of Chief Minister and Governor respectively.

On account of Article 370 certain separate laws govern the residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The most debated in the now diminished list are the laws governing citizenship, residency and ownership and inheritance of property in the State.        

The contours and features of Article 370 were personally envisaged by Sher-e-Kashmir, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah to safeguard the State’s sense of identity and nationalism within the Union of India. Realizing that the State’s political, economic and strategic future and that of its citizens was best served and protected by acceding to the Union of India, Sheikh Sahib wanted certain “iron clad” provisions and conditions to accompany the accession. Sheikh Sahib was strongly opposed to such conditions and provisions being constitutionally categorized as “temporary provisions” and fought hard to change this till the very last moment.     

The story of the erosion of J&K’s special status can neither been explained by a demonization of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah nor through a persistent distortion of history. As stated by Dr. Mustafa Kamal, a significant part of this erosion was carried out through pliant governments in the State that were installed through surreptitious methods at frequent intervals. These self-righteous critics and self-proclaimed saviors of Kashmir have traditionally stayed silent about the roles played to this effect by the governments of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad (1953 to 1964), Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq (1964 to 1965) and Syed Mir Qasim (1971 to 1975) under the patronage of a particular national party. While Sadiq and Qasim were Congress leaders, Bakshi was as much a National Conference leader as much as Goneril and Regan were loving and obedient daughters to King Lear.  

While Bakshi’s run at power is an almost theatrically engrossing Shakespearian tale of opportunism, betrayal and cold-blooded deceit both with Sheikh Sahib and the people of Kashmir at large, Sadiq’s story is a narrative of how a Kashmiri leader appeased a nationalist Indian agenda of eroding J&K’s special status to operative perfection. As Sumantra Bose points out in his book, “Kashmir – Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace”, Sadiq – the founder of Congress in J&K, was a strong votary for the abolishment of Article 370 and was even invested with the responsibility of dismantling Jammu & Kashmir National Conference and integrating the “remnants” into the Indian National Congress. A. G. Noorani validates the same.

Pertinently Article 356 and 357 of the Indian Constitution were extended to the State of Jammu & Kashmir in December 1964 during the tenure of Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq of the Congress. This, inarguably the biggest single erosion of the State’s special status, did not happen at the behest of either National Conference or Sheikh Sahib but in fact in strong opposition to his continued efforts to safeguard the special status despite incarceration and persecution. Ironically, a certain leader whose late father was a Congress leader during this period in history has recently blamed Sheikh Sahib for the erosion of Article 370. Invoking H.P. Lovecraft, “From even the greatest of horrors, irony is seldom absent.”

Our demand for the restoration of autonomy and the eroded special status of the State is far from an “electoral pitch”. It is the continuation of a consistent battle to safeguard the identity and interests of our people. As far as distortions of history are concerned – there is a special place in history for such distorters – the inglorious footnotes and sidelines.  

(Views expressed are personal and not of the party I belong to. For feedback - junaid.msu@gmail.com)