Hacker News Reader

Comment by negamax | Hacker News Reader

People are making this too big an issue. It's about Indian Kashmir. Currently rest of the country can't buy land there, can't invest etc. How's that good for integration.

With 370 gone. Rest of India will be able to invest in Kashmir (Indian Kashmir).

Edit:

I gathered more information. This is quite beneficial for Kashmiris. Like really beneficial. Some of their new rights

- RTI (Right to Information)

- State elections every 5 years

- Reservations for minorities

- Special oversight and power of President in case of emergency

Not to mention biggest benefit would be investment from everywhere that will flourish the people.

View on HN

The issue is with the manner in which this was done. How do you think cutting off the entirety of Kashmir from internet, and making tourists/pilgrims evacuate the valley looks like?

This just resembles a coup. The people of Kashmir are unable to voice their opinions.

This makes no sense. The people of Michigan don't get to unilaterally veto Federal laws. Federal laws are set at the federal level and as a result are dependent on the will of the entire country, even if the impact is only on a certain part of the country.

When the US President declares a federal emergency in a certain part of the country that part does not get veto rights over the decision.

Now, I don't know if the actual revocation of the law in question was done legally, (although further down some 'constitutional expert' says it's completely legal and no one appears to be claiming otherwise) but assuming it was, this is nothing like a coup and is in fact the cornerstone of a federal democracy where certain powers are provided to the federal government, which are based on the will of the entire country rather than just a state or province.

Except the special status of Kashmir is laid down in the Constitution of India; with the provision that any change to that effect should be mutually agreed on.

To expand; India has the concept of "Union Territories" where the some matters like law and order (and others, I'm not an expert) which are usually State matters are controlled by the Central (Federal) government;

What's been done here is the effective equivalent of taking any already well-established state (say Maharashtra) with an elected legislature and converting it into a Union Territory; thereby stripping the State of a lot of power.

> the special status of Kashmir is laid down in the Constitution of India; with the provision that any change to that effect should be mutually agreed on

Wikipedia says Article 35A "was added to the Constitution through a Presidential Order" [1] via powers granted by Article 370 [2].

I am unfamiliar with the Indian Constitution. But 370(3) gives the President the unilateral right to "by public notification, declare that [Article 370] shall cease to be operative" pending only "the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State" [2]. (Recommendation, not consent.)

There is no requirement for mutual agreement. Article 370, and thus 35A, are wholly executive prerogatives.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_35A_of_the_Constitutio...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370_of_the_Constitutio...

You are probably correct; IANAL and have only a cursory knowledge of the matter.

But I don't believe any recommendation from the Constituent Assembly was received to the best of my knowledge.

> I don't believe any recommendation from the Constituent Assembly was received to the best of my knowledge

The Constituent Assembly provided its recommendation in the 1950s [1]. (I think this is where Article 35A came from.) The Assembly doesn't appear to have convened since 1954. It thus makes sense to interpret the recommendation requirement in 370(3) as a prohibition on the Indian President cancelling Article 370 before the Assembly had a chance to make its circa 1954 recommendations.

(Surprisingly, one of those changes was not a mutuality requirement on termination of the Article.)

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_Assembly_of_Jammu_...

This sounds like executive privilege in the US, which basically is unilaterally added or withdrawn by the current president.

If so, that would explain why no one in that article is complaining about the legality of the move.

This just resembles a coup.

Alternatively, it resembles a conflict zone with a history of intercommunal violence, and armed conflict involving three countries. Which it is, actually.

Not just that, regressive practices like Triple Talaq and Child marriage were still legal in Kashmir.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com