Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

Honour the commitment

Sir, — The imperative autonomy points in favour of the grant of a large degree of autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir, considering its consensually recognised unique status by virtue of its special historical background, is so convincingly presented by Malini Parthasarathy in her article `Winning the battle over Kashmir'(Aug. 5). This is undeniably one big factor imperative in demolishing far too many obstacles standing as impregnable barriers to bringing the Kashmir imbroglio to a sure solution. With provision for ample safeguards against any possible future claim to secession by the State duly built in, two former Prime Ministers have expressed their firm commitment, even over a span of more than two decades, in favour of the special treatment being meted out to it. And, it would only be an act consistent with the principles of grace, dignity and truthfulness, if the succeeding regimes, no matter their ideological differences on many matters, care to see it as a healthy convention to honour a promise made by their predecessors.

A.N. Ganapathy,

Chennai

* * *

Sir — Two recent articles stressing autonomy for the so-called `Kashmir' betrayed an ignorance that was doubly amazing and agonizing because they were written by an ex-Prime Minister, I.K. Gujral, (Aug. 3) and Malani Parthasarathy (Aug. 5). Both dwelt exclusively on `Kashmir' though that unimpeachable authority, Karan Singh, has gone on record that "there is no such thing as `Kashmir'. It is the State of Jammu and Kashmir... ruled by my father till he signed the Instrument of Accession. The Kashmir Valley was just about 6,000 sq. miles of the State. When people say the wishes of Kashmiris should be taken into consideration, I want to ask, "What about the wishes of all others, the people from Jammu, from Ladakh?" (The Times of India, July 15, 2001).

Treating the Valley as representative of the whole State is a particularly perverse distortion considering that political leaders in Jammu and Ladakh districts — each of which is much larger geographically than the Valley — have often said that those hitherto neglected entities must be individually given a separate status having a full constitutional integration with the Union of India.

Mr. Gujral cites Articles 371(A) to 371(I) to argue that our Constitution is accommodative enough to allow the `Kashmir' demand for autonomy. But he does not even mention Article 370 which has, for 52 years now, conferred a uniquely special status on J&K.

Ms. Parthasarathy's argument that repudiation of the current autonomy demand of J&K amounts to a rejection of Article 370 is misconceived criticism.

As for her quotes from the pacts of 1952 and 1975 being the ultimate "affirmation of the State's unquestioned accession to the Indian Union", let it be noted that a proclamation of a country-wide Emergency under Article 352(1) pertaining to national security still cannot be made applicable to J&K without that State's request or concurrence.

Special treatment is but one of the many constitutional and Parliamentary legislation exemptions granted only to J&K — as will be found by anyone who reads Article 370 diligently and studies the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order 1954 along with the various subsequent amendments thereto issued by the President under Article 370.

Arvind Lavakare,

Mumbai

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Grave challenge
• Preventing the spread of AIDS
• Charity... or terrorism?
• Governance and corruption
• Warring with neighbours
• Honour the commitment
• Unity as conspiracy
• Support to RSS

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu