For the sake of the Union
The recent decision came from the Supreme Court on abrogation of Article 370 has made clarity for all regarding its pros and cons.
Article 370 Verdict
- Judicial Impartiality: The Supreme Court's decision on Article 370 aligns with the Constitution, rejecting claims of compromise or ulterior motives.
- The ruling accurately reflects the constitutional evolution, stating the temporary nature of Article 370 and its erosion over decades.
- Federalism and Constitutional Design: The absence of the term "federalism" in the Indian Constitution aligns with B R Ambedkar's vision of a union, not a federation.
- Amit Shah's argument in Parliament, emphasizing one constitution for India, dispels notions of dual citizenship.
- Flexible Federalism: Ambedkar's concept of "flexible federalism" and the Supreme Court's endorsement of "asymmetric federalism" characterize India's unique constitutional structure.
Critique of Article 370
- Temporary Provision: Article 370, introduced as a temporary measure, was expected to cease with the state's constituent assembly.
- Delhi Agreement: The Delhi Agreement in 1952 prolonged Article 370's existence, introducing dangerous precedents like shared sovereignty and separate citizenship.
- Supreme Court's Rectification: The Supreme Court's decision rectifies distortions from the Delhi Agreement and supports the Central government's annulment of Article 370.
- A Dilemma got over: The ruling ensures closure on the issue, foreclosing any potential revival of Article 370 in the future.
- Territorial Claims: Despite celebrating the end of separate status, attention is drawn to the J&K Constitution, which defined territories differently.
- J&K Constitution: The J&K Constitution's explicit reference to pre-1947 territories raises questions about areas annexed by Pakistan post-Independence.