Article 370: Answers for a friend

Normalcy will require the fading away of a number of generations committed to a separatist
ideology in Jammu & Kashmir



Less than 24 hours after Narendra Modi was sworn in as prime minister, a member of his council
of ministers declared the government was taking steps to repeal Article 370 of the Constitution.
This article bestows special status on Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), placing it on a different
footing from all other states.
Any discussion on the subject leads to polarized opinions. In J&K, it has spawned a separatist
mentality.

Last week, something similar happened in the course of a discussion with a friend whose ideas
have always inspired me. His question was twofold. Is it necessary to expend scarce political
capital on repealing Art. 370 when the new government has more pressing tasks on hand (such as
ensuring Indias economic revival)? And what should proceed first: a country-wide, including in
J&K, political consensus on the subject followed by repealing Art. 370 or should the reverse
sequence follow?

I always bow to his wisdom but in this case I differ: J&Ks special status must end first. A tighter
fit with India will follow over time.

If the matter were as simple as building a consensus, it would have been done a long time ago.
Countless number of delegations, working groups and agreements has not led to the states
complete integration with the Union. On paper, the state is fully integrated with India. Even
someone as prescient as Jawaharlal Nehru, who knew the realities in the state felt that there is
no doubt that Kashmir is fully integrated (debate in Lok Sabha, 27 November 1963).
Only an extreme optimist can assert that J&K is a normal state whose residents are patriotic
citizens who harbour no ill-will towards the country. Events of the past 25 years point in another
direction. No agreement under the present framework of Art. 370 can psychologically integrate
Kashmir with India. Art. 370 only keeps the hopes of Kashmir becoming independent one day
alive among its residents. They should not be blamed for harbouring that sentiment.

Then

Kashmir remains one of the last unfinished chapters of nation-building in India. The countrys
foundersnot only political leaders but also the fine legal minds who populated the Constituent
Assemblywere amazingly clear thinkers. Yet when it came to Kashmir, they displayed
remarkable fuzziness.

Three examples illustrate this muddled thinking. In the debate after the moving of draft Art. 370
in the Constituent Assembly, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar did not realize that what he assumed to
be an interim administrative measure would end up as a separatist clause. The full debate is
worth reading 65 years later for its hopeful naivet (Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol X, 17
October 1949).

Three years later, on 6 September 1952, president Rajendra Prasad penned a note for prime
minister Nehru which can only be called infamous for its interpretation of Art. 370. In his note,
Prasad argued that abrogation of Art. 370 would also mean the inapplicability of Art. 1 of the
Constitution that defines the territory of the Union. This was because Prasad felt that Art. 1 was
applicable to J&K only through the medium of Art. 370. This is remarkable to say the least:
Surely Art. 1 is applicable to the entire country without any crutch for it defines India. When
Omar Abdullah said some weeks ago that if Art. 370 was repealed, Kashmir would cease to be a
part of India, he was only echoing the narrow and mistaken view of an otherwise distinguished
president.

The person who stands out in this march of folly, however, is Nehru. Out of his friendship with
two personsthe last viceroy Lord Mountbatten and fellow Kashmiri Sheikh Abdullahflowed
two actions: referring the Kashmir dispute to the UN and the extraordinary Constitutional
provisions for the state. To his credit, however, he realized his mistake quickly. He also admitted
that only an imperfect solution was possible. In a note to Sheikh Abdullah on 25 August 1952, he
said he had given up on plebiscite in the state by the end of 1948 and the only feasible option
was to let Pakistan keep what it occupied, if peace was to be maintained between the two
countries.
With this history and baggage, it is not possible to build a consensus about unifying Kashmir
with India.

Now

Any starting point towards making J&K a normal state has to begin with the repeal of Art. 370.
Normalcy will not be an immediate consequence and will require the fading away of a number of
generations committed to a separatist ideology in that state. But once Art. 370 is repealed, the
psychological barrier will go. With that will also go ideas such as independence and merger with
Pakistan. This will take time but it will happen.

The conditions for repealing Art. 370 exist today. The present ruling coalition is close to the
parliamentary strength needed to carry out the necessary Constitutional amendments and get rid
of this pernicious article. It is after 30 years that a government in New Delhi has acquired such
strength in the Lok Sabha. It should do what is necessary to complete this important and
unfinished task.

So here is my answer to my friend: Repealing Art. 370 is a necessary but not a sufficient
condition for making Kashmir a normal place. But necessity must flow before sufficiency. That
can happen later.
Siddharth Singh is Editor (Views) at Mint. Reluctant Duelist will take stock of matters economic,
political and strategicin India and elsewhereevery fortnight.