Reflections on the Abrogation of Article 370

1

1

Khrietuonyü Noudi

 

Recently the Narendra Modi government abrogated Article 370 which had granted special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir for over 70 years since Indian independence. While many appreciated this bold step taken by the government, there were also some who were not happy as they view it as a manifestation of the arrogance of the Modi government which enjoys absolute majority in the parliament. The assertion of the government that Article 370 had limited the development and freedom of the people living in the Kashmir valley may be true to some extent. It also may be true that the special status given to Kashmir by Article 370 had hatched terrorism and given impetus to Pakistan-funded terrorism. But if one views the political atmosphere in which Kashmir was integrated into India through Article 370 right after India’s independence, I guess it was a very clever move by the Nehru administration to prevent a full-fledged war with Pakistan and also in avoiding mass civil unrest in the valley. 


Upon the scrapping of Article 370, those north-eastern states (including Nagaland) who also enjoy special status under the Indian constitution became apprehensive about their own special status which they enjoy under Article 371 of the constitution. However, Home minister Amit Shah allayed the fear of these states by announcing that there is no connection between Article 370 and Article 371 and that the Modi government had no intention to touch Article 371. For now, let us believe him. 


I am nobody to either hail or condemn the abrogation of Article 370. That is none of my business. There are many who can do that much better than me. But I want to focus on another aspect which has come to light again with the scrapping of this famous Article. 


The one noticeable aspect in this whole episode was how easily it was done by the government. Kashmir is a beautiful valley inhabited by people rich and vibrant in culture and way of life. Moreover, it is strategically located in such a part of South-East Asia geography that some have even called it the most beautiful as well as the most dangerous place in the world. It is also a hotspot and a hotbed for everything that is good as well as bad. It is a place which is famous for tourists as well as terrorists. Besides, Kashmir has been ingrained forever in the minds and memory of millions of people because of its fantastic portrayal in popular Indian cinematic culture. Yes, in the bygone eras, an Indian film was considered incomplete if it did not have any song which was shot in Kashmir. 


But even though Kashmir had all these track-records and attributes, the Modi government could just wipe away its special status by procuring a simple majority in the parliament. The government did not carry out a plebiscite or a referendum in the valley to know what the people wanted. The government also did not consult or even inform the chief minister of Kashmir or the duly installed government there about its decision to do away with this Article under which the people of the valley had lived for over 70 years.     


This brings us to another important Article of the Indian constitution – Article 368. This Article 368 deals with the provisions regarding amendment of the constitution. It provides for three methods through which the constitution can be amended: 


1)     The first method says that some provisions of the constitution can be changed / amended by a simple majority in the parliament.


2)    The second method says that some provisions of the constitution can be changed only by an absolute majority (2/3rd majority) in the parliament.  


3)    The third method says that some provisions of the constitution can be changed only through an absolute majority in the parliament as well as the ratification of more than half of the states.  


And here it may be mentioned that the constitution has empowered the parliament to change the name, territories or boundaries of any Indian state without even consulting or informing the concerned states if it feels that such a step is necessary for the overall good of the country. In fact, to do such a thing, the constitution says that the Indian parliament does not even need a special majority (2/3rd majority). It can easily do so through a simple majority. Similarly, the constitution has also empowered the Indian parliament to cancel any of the special provisions / protections which some states (including Nagaland) enjoy under the constitution if the government feels that such a step is necessary for the good of the country.

        
Here, we need to understand that people living in any Indian state have a deep sense of attachment and pride towards the names of their states as well as its lands, territories and boundaries. Likewise, the states which enjoy special status under various provisions of the constitution also feel very safe and secure under these special provisions and over the years, these people have come to develop an idea that these special provisions are permanent and irrevocable. 


But if the Indian parliament through a simple majority can change or alter the name and boundary of any state or end the special provision / protection that an Indian state may be enjoying, then where is the logic to be so proud and jubilant about these names, our territories or the special provisions / protections when we know that these can be changed or taken away anytime without our consultation or even knowledge. Of course, if the party in power at the centre is a people friendly and people-oriented government which has regards for the feelings and sentiments of the people living in all nooks and corners of the country, it may not take such drastic steps at the slightest provocation. But the fact that the Indian constitution has empowered the parliament for such eventualities is something which every responsible citizen should be aware of. 


For instance, when the Nehru government decided to grant full-fledged statehood to the Nagas, there was a big debate and heavy discussion in the parliament regarding the name that was to be given to the new state. Some parliamentarians suggested the name ‘Naga Province’ while some others came up with ‘Naga Pradesh’. But none of the people in the government or the parliament thought about even asking or consulting the Nagas or their representatives regarding such an important matter over which the Nagas were sure to have a deep sentimental and emotional attachment. But finally, Nehru himself decided to name the new state as ‘Nagaland’ because he thought that it was what the Nagas would have wanted the most.


This means that, even today if the Indian government decides to rename Nagaland as ‘Naga Pradesh’ or ‘Naga Province’ or give another name to our state, it can do so easily by procuring a simple majority in the parliament. And to do this, the Indian government need not necessarily consult the Naga people, its hohos, its representatives or even our state government if it feels that such a step is necessary for the nation. Likewise, the Indian parliament also has the power to alter the territories of any of the states including the NE states. And this is why our neighbors are shouting at the top of their voices today because they know that the union government has the power to cut and dissect their lands and give it to any neighboring state.    

    
In the same way, the Indian constitution has empowered the union government to scrap any of the special provisions / protections that some Indian states enjoy if it feels that such a step is needed in the interest of the country. And to carry out such a step, the central government need not conduct a plebiscite or referendum or consult or even inform the people of the concerned state. It can do so easily by procuring a simple majority in the parliament. And the government would not be answerable to anybody or any institution for taking such a step. And this means that even our very own beloved Article 371 (A) is also just hanging by a thin string above our head. We may go to bed tonight thinking that we are completely safe and secure under Article 371 (A) and wake up tomorrow and read in the paper that this Article has vanished into thin air…