ARTICLE 370: IS IT STILL IMPORTANT?
Wednesday, 7th May, 2008
It has been more than 60 years since independence of India; this state has been accorded a special status under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Yes, we are talking about Jammu & Kashmir. It is this article which originally granted an unprecedented degree of autonomy to India’s only Muslim majority state. This article confines the writ of central government to defense, foreign affairs and communication only. It also has the power to permit the state to determine which feature of the Constitution of India could be extended to it.
This article still remains a matter of debate to rest of India. For some it is inevitable and desirable to erode the provisions of Article 370.Since the first State assembly ratified in 1954, the accession of Kashmir to India, so there is no reason to maintain the status quo. They hold it mandatory for the integration of the country. There are some that hold government should respect the wishes of the populace there and should not seek to hasten the process as they think this is for sure a guarantee against the rise of secessionist sentiment.
Well, both the situations have faults and flaws. Let’s look back in history. Hari Singh, the then Maharaja of Kashmir, failed to accede to either India or Pakistan when the British departed in 1947. There was an attack of Pakistan backed tribals on the outskirts of Srinagar at the end of October 1947. The Maharaja turned to India for help and agreed to accede in exchange of military assistance. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru asked Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, the leader of the largest popular organisation the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, in the state to look into the legality and legitimacy of the accession. It was under Abdullah’s countenance did Nehru send in troops to relieve the badgered monarch.
Afterwards, Abdullah and Nehru, under the Delhi Agreement in 1952 abolished hereditary monarchy in the stated and state was vested with the residuary powers. There were provisions carved specially for the state, for example, Emergency powers could only be extended to Kashmir in wartime. Some special provisions were drawn up for state subjects and there were particular features of the Indian constitution deemed inapplicable to Kashmir.
With the outbreak of insurgency, shaping up of a counter insurgency strategy conjugated with free and fair elections in 2002 has restored color of normalcy. Thus the restoration of the state’s autonomy to the terms of Delhi Agreement is politically impracticable. The task before the interlocutors of the state and the Central government today is to carefully balance these two competing interests.

