And, don’t fault Narendra Modi for raising issue
Bharatiya Janata Party's prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi has made an eminently sensible suggestion that Article 370, which applies to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, should be thoroughly debated. Mr Modi did not call for either its abrogation or its continuation. There is no need for his rivals to get worked up over the remarks, because contentious provisions of the Constitution have been discussed and even amended in the past. In fact the written Constitution of India has been amended close to 100 times since it was adopted in 1950. No harm will be done either to the interests of Jammu & Kashmir or the country if Article 370 too is debated at length by political parties, stakeholders and legal experts. After all, the provision has been under the scanner for a long while now; one group claims that the Article has served to alienate the State from the rest of the nation, while a rival section holds that the provision has helped keep the State in the Indian Union's fold. These competing arguments demonstrate that Article 370 is a debatable issue, and the best way to deal with such matters in a democracy is to have an open and fair discussion. Unfortunately, certain political parties and organisations are allergic to a debate as they have presumed that, let alone repeal the Article, even a discussion on the subject will take us into dangerous terrain. But they fail to realise that the more they block a fair debate on the subject the more they fuel discontent among a large section of the population within the State and in the rest of the country. There is nothing sacrosanct about Article 370. It was supposed to be temporary in nature when it came into being following the Instrument of Accession signed between the Union of India and the then ruler of the State after India gained independence. As early as 1963, Jawaharlal Nehru had remarked that “Article 370 has been eroded, the process of gradual erosion is going on; we should allow it to go on”. In other words, even Nehru was convinced that the provision could (and should) not continue for ever.
Even if we refrain from conclusively judging the issue, it is clear that Article 370 has not entirely served its self-confessed role of effectively addressing the core issues of the State and its people. The levels of discontent in Kashmir valley as also Jammu (though for different, and often opposing, reasons) show that the provision has done little to meet the people’s aspirations or redress their grievances. On the contrary, as many observers would point out, Article 370 has added to the unrest and the failure of the Governments both in the State and in New Delhi to tackle them. Apologists of the Article argue that there are a few other States where laws exist which limit the rights of citizens who do not belong to the State. But there is no other State where Article 370 applies, nor is there another State which has its own Constitution and powers that accompany such Constitution. Except in areas of Defence, External Affairs, Finance and Communications, Parliament needs the State of Jammu & Kashmir's concurrence to apply laws that extend to the other States. While it is for experts to determine whether Article 370 can be abolished (if it must) through a constitutional amendment or by an executive order, let’s discuss the Article on merit.