The detractors of Modi have come out their guns blazing for his  suggestion to revisit to the Article 370. Former Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir Farooq Abdullah, currently a Union Minister, has thumped  that the Article 370 cannot be repealed even if Modi were to become  Prime Minister 10 times. Abdullah, forgets that it is not the Prime  Minister but the President who can repeal this particular Article  through a public notification. The Article 370 falls under Part XXI of  the Constitution of India comprising Article 369 to 392 (Articles 379 to 391 now repealed) titled Temporary, Transitional and Special  Provisions. The actual title of the Article 370 is Temporary provisions  with respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

The Constitution makers thus never envisaged it to be an article of  faith. Article 370 (3) decrees –‘Notwithstanding anything in the  foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public  notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or  shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from  such date as he may specify”. I do not begrudge Farooq Abdullah since  the whole purpose of Article 370 was to establish a Sheikhdom. Jagmohan, former Governor of J&K, finds Article 370 perpetuating two-nation  theory with Indian money. But why Sharad Yadav, former Convener, NDA  want to give it a cosmic turn by claiming it cannot be amended even in  100 lives?

He forgets that Kashmir of Abhinavgupta and Shilbhadra which thought  in cosmic terms was the springhead of India.Their ideological  descendants are not demanding the retention of Article 370. It is  Kashmiris who were Arabized due to cataclysmic process of history want  Article 370 and even Azadi.

Modi, however, has not committed a sacrilege by asking for a debate  on Article 370. The issue has been raised in both Houses of Parliament  on numerous occasions. Only last year the Lok Sabha admitted a Private  Members Bill to phase out the Article 370. The Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2011 by Hansraj Gangaram Ahir was introduced in Lok Sabha on April 27, 2012.  The Bill says that the provisions of Article 370, unless made  inoperative sooner by the President, shall cease to have effect on the  expiration of 62 years from the commencement of the Constitution. The  Bill is pending in Lok Sabha.

Why did the Speaker allow the Private Member Bill to that effect to  be introduced? A Private Member Bill goes through the scrutiny of a  Private Members’ Bill and Resolution. Hansraj Gangaram Ahir is no doubt a BJP member. This Lok Sabha MP from Chandrapur (Maharashtra) along with  party colleague Prakash Javadekar played the central role in exposing  the Coalgate scam. But none of the existing members of the Private  Members’ Bill and Resolution Committee were from the BJP. Most of them  were from the Congress. Interestingly, the ET Mohammed Basheer is a  member of Indian Union Muslim League, Kerala.

On December 10, 2012, the Lok Sabha also allowed a Special Mention  under Rule 377 by Kirti Azad, BJP MP from Darbhanga on Article 370.

Matters under Rule 377 in Lok Sabha

December 10, 2012

Title: Need to review and amend Article 370 of the Constitution of India.

SHRI KIRTI AZAD (DARBHANGA): It has been enshrined in the  Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir that it is an integral part of  India, however, vested interests have steadily tried to alienate the  State using Article 370. This Article is an additional Legislative  mechanism that was badly conceived and has become irrelevant over the  course of time. It has allowed State apathy to prevail with respect to  status and empowerment of SC/ST/OBC/women. The State has also relegated  certain citizens of India residing in Jammu & Kashmir to the status  of refugee. By doing this, the State has washed its hands off the  responsibility of welfare of these individuals. A glaring example of  State’s blatant disregard of establishing an equitable society is its  own citizenship law which overrides the laws of Indian Parliament.

According to this law, a female subject married to an Indian not from the State of Jammu and Kashmir loses her right to inherit property in  the State, however, a male subject is free to marry anyone from any part of India or the world and be assured of his right to inherit property  of his forefathers. This is not only in violation of basic human rights  but also the UN Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against women that India has signed and ratified.

Article 370 has contributed to the alienation of State from the India and fanned separatist sentiments. Therefore, it is doing more harm than good to the people of the State and India at large.

Why hound Modi when it is perfectly acceptable to debate abolition of Article 370 in Parliament?