This article is about a Parliamentary debate directly dealing with issue of Article 370 in which Prakash Vir Shastri, who was a noted M.P for his eloquence & forceful oratory style presented the bill before the Lok Sabha. Bill echoed the views of good many people in the House i.e. India should be one consolidated unit exercising undivided sovereignty. Accordingly P.V Shastri introduced the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 1964 in Lok Sabha on 11 Sep, 1964. The bill sought to repeal Article 370 of Indian Constitution. Members including from the congress party who stood up to speak on the bill were continuously asking that what are the reasons or grounds that Govt. of India is shy of abrogating Article 370 where members developed point by point case with a request to repeal Article 370. During this debate, a large no. of myths regarding J&K were demystified and controversies were dealt with factual information.
Throughout the whole debate, a thing which was patently discernible was that 'The whole nation and its representatives in Parliament were asking for repeal of Article 370, but the Govt. of India, through its brute majority did contrary, which was neither just nor right.']
The debate was started by Prakash Vir Shastri, on a caution note to Govt. of India where he reiterated that in spite of sacrifice of hundreds of army men and even after spending crores of rupees on State of JK, the situation is getting worse because of uncertain will of the Govt.
WHY ARTICLE 370 INSERTED ?
Then by reminding the assurances given by Iyenger and Nehru on removal of Article 370 at various occasions, P.V Shastri gave the background of insertion of Article 370 in India's Constitution by quoting Iyenger's words i.e.
• There is an armed attack on JK which is continuing, situation is not normal in State due to war. Thus in unusual conditions, state's administration could be run in unusual way.
• Only interim arrangement is possible until State's constituent Assembly established.
• Article 370 would be repealed by the Presidential order taking the recommendation of State's Constituent assembly.
WISHES OF THE PEOPLE ASCERTAINED
When the Accession paper was signed, it was signed by Maharaja Hari Singh but when the Constitution of JK was finalized by Constituent assembly, its Preamble clearly says 'We the People of State of Jammu Kashmir', thus the will of the people of JK has been ascertained.
Then after Section 3 was added i.e. 'The State of JK is and shall be an integral part of India'.
But even after this, it seems JK State further wanted to come closer to India when it inserted Sec. 147 in its Constitution which says to bring any amendment in this Constitution, 2/3rd majority in the legislature is needed and thereafter the assent of the Governor.
In addition to above a 'LAKSHMAN REKHA' was drawn by Sec. 147 which provides inter alia, that ' no bill or amendment seeking to make any change in Sec. 3 & 5 or the provisions of the Constitution of India as applicable, in relation to the State, shall be introduced or moved in either House of the Legislature.
In this sequence, State Constitution accepted & recognized the Supremacy and Over- Lordship of Union when they said; appointment and removal of judges of the H.C would be done by the President of India and only the citizen of Union of India could be a judge.
PLEBISCITE HAS BEEN ALREADY DONE
What is meant by plebiscite? Does it mean that while Constitution of India was framed, ascertain the wish of 44 crore people individually or it meant ascertaining the wishes of the elected representative of them? Constitution of India says in its Preamble that 'We the People of India', not we 500 members who are sitting in the Constituent Assembly. Similarly Preamble of JK Constitution Says 'We the People of Jammu Kashmir'. In this way, Wishes of the People of State of JK has been ascertained, now nowhere remains the scope of ascertaining the wishes of people again and again.
Parties which are taking interest in Plebiscite are Pakistan, Britain/ America and National Conference.
Pakistan : According to the Indian Independence Act, 1947, Ruler of JK i.e. Maharaja Hari Singh chose to sign the accession Paper with India. He had no talks with India on it. Thus Pakistan is clearly not a party in this.
Britain : Britain has a history of leaving bitter and vitriolic impression in all the countries where it ruled once upon a time. Pakistan is one of such example. Before we could tackle with it, Kashmir became the second weapon of Britain.
Britain in its legislative enactment i.e. Government of India Act, 1935 gave the 'Right to Accede' to the ruler of the Princely State, not the individuals of the Princely State. And today representative of Britain by sitting in United Nations calls for the plebiscite in JK, which clearly expose the dual standards and hypocrisy of Britain.
STAND OF BRITAIN & AMERICA
In his speech, P.V Shastri, showed mirror to Britain i.e. Britain is acting against the will of its legislative enactment for India. As 1935 Government of India Act says Ruler will be the person to decide accession but today Britain is saying wish of the every individual to be ascertained. America used Kashmir issue as a strategy to block communism.
Both Britain and America tried their best in UN to pass resolution on Plebiscite, but Russian Veto protected India.
DISADVANTAGES OF KEEPING ARTICLE 370 IN CONSTITUTION
• Doubts are getting created in Countries who do not have knowledge of Indian Constitution.
• People of J&K also are getting confused about relations with India.
• People like Sheikh Abdullah started to raise narrative of Plebiscite i.e. Plebiscite Front created.
ARTICLE 1: RELATIONSHIP WITH INDIA
The article relating to the accession of Jammu Kashmir with India is not 370 but Article 1 of the Constitution of India, where the Territory of India is clearly defined which includes the whole state of Jammu Kashmir. Article 370 stands nowhere in it
MYTH OF CONDITIONAL ACCESSION
The term Conditional accession finds no place in our Indian Constitution. Even British Parliament act has no such arrangement like Conditional Accession.
Also J&K Constitution nowhere even indicates about Conditional Accession. So when there exist no provision for conditional accession, the accession of J&K is final and gives no way to any possibility of error.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICAL WISH AND LAW.
There is one thing called Political wish, which can never be considered as law. Statements of Lord Mountbatten, Nehru and Iyenger are mere Political wish, it can never be a law of the Nation. Nowhere in the Legal framework of India or Jammu Kashmir remains a scope for Plebiscite.
NEED IS TO COME OUT OF THE AWE OF PERSONALITIES : DUAL STANDARDS EXPOSED
Gulam Mohd. Sadiq, who was the then P.M of J&K said in his 1963 speech that to maintain Law and Order in the state, Art. 370 needs to be immediately repealed. But from few last days he has taken a U-Turn on his stand of repeal of Art. 370.
Even the Sheikh Abdullah is a great falsifier as he speaks in different language when he speaks in U.N and a different language when in India.
The only issue that remains in the United Nations today is that How India would get back the areas of J&K which are illegally occupied by Pakistan ? How U.N would help India in getting its territory back which is in illegal occupation of Pakistan.
The author can also be reached at email@example.com