Editorial
The BJP’s current criticism of Jawaharlal Nehru’s cautious approach to Kashmir stands in stark contrast to his undeniable impact on shaping modern India. Erasing his imprint would be akin to altering the country’s very DNA. However, the BJP’s pro-Hindutva ideology, championed by Modi, seeks to write a new chapter in the political narrative, highlighting Sardar Patel’s legacy and aligning with the party’s manifesto of abrogating Articles 370 and 35A. This proactive stance towards historical grievances deviates from Nehru’s reluctance to forcefully annex Kashmir, a decision that stands in contrast to the integration of other princely states.
The Instrument of Accession in 1947 marked Jammu and Kashmir’s integration into India under specific conditions, embodied by Article 370. This unique provision granted the state special privileges, restricting the Indian Parliament’s authority in certain areas and empowering the state legislature to enact tailored laws. However, in 2019, President Kovind’s C.O. 272 dramatically altered the interpretation of Article 370, paving the way for its abrogation without the Constituent Assembly’s approval. This move, perceived by many as a strategic bid for the 2024 elections, effectively nullified Jammu and Kashmir’s special status.
The Supreme Court’s recent verdict upholding the abrogation has ignited a firestorm of debate. Critics argue that Article 370 wasn’t intended to be temporary and that its abrogation disregards the original intent of the Instrument of Accession and undermines Kashmiri identity. Sheikh Abdullah’s words and the Sampat Prakash case further support this argument, highlighting the historical understanding of Article 370 as non-temporary. Additionally, concerns have been raised about the abrogation’s impact on the Constitution’s fundamental principles, as established by the Keshvanand Bharti judgment.
Please, subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com
Despite the Supreme Court’s interpretation, the 1957 UN resolution on Kashmir remains a valid international obligation. The BJP’s move, therefore, is seen by many as politically motivated and potentially detrimental to India’s image on the global stage. Furthermore, the potential for psychological and political repercussions within India cannot be ignored.
The abrogation of Article 370 has opened a Pandora’s box of historical, legal, and political complexities. While the BJP seeks to legitimize its action through a new narrative focused on Hindutva ideology and historical grievances, the issue continues to spark debate and controversy. The true implications of this decision, both within India and on the international stage, remain to be fully understood and will likely continue to shape the country’s political landscape for years to come. Importantly, the Kashmir is a core issue of contention between India and Pakistan. Furthermore, it is an incomplete agenda of partition. Therefore, it is critical to to settle the issue of J&K as per the aspiration of the people of Kashmir and per the resolutions of United Nations.
Please, subscribe to the monthly magazines of republicpolicy.com