Autonomy Under Indian Constitution: An Old Pragmatic Approach To Kashmir or a Recipe for Disaster?

[Rajaraja Chola]

A very interesting observation. Very apt.

[B]Off-topic, you might like to read Yasser Latif Hamdani on his thesis that Jinnah sought some kind of 'consociational' arrangement. 'Consociationalism' is the term used for the Canadian arrangement with Quebec.[/B]

Very interesting that you should bring this up.



I deplore your post, considering the enormous effort spent by other members to explore the Kashmir issue threadbare. This was totally uncalled for, and represents nothing but a deliberate attempt at provocation.

Utterly disgraceful.

Being in Canada right now, I found this arrangement pretty interesting. I think Jinnah should have realised one thing maybe when he asked for an Union within an Union. I mean there is no chance for a Hindu to become CM of a state like Kashmir (due to political compulsions of course). Same for Balochs, or Sindhi, or Punjab. In a democracy, people with majority race or religion mostly tend to rule the state, except unless an exceptional leader comes, say, YSR of united AP or Kerala. Even Maharastra had a Muslim CM, albeit temporarily. Jinnah, I believe, failed to grasp the basic understanding of demographic politics. Of course, India of that time was huge, with different states merged into an big one.

But there are perceived advantages of such an arrangement. Kashmir must start generating its own revenues to meet its budget. It cannot depend on handouts from Indian tax payers anymore in case of more autonomy. And it will force Kashmir to bring in radical changes to their own Industrial and Tourism sector. And Kashmiris will have less chances of blaming India for this and that.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Radical solution to Kashmir-
1 Remove article 370

Not constitutionally possible. I have explained why, in detail. Why do you right-wingers continue to think that Article 370 is some kind of a barrier zone?

2 Give incentives for indians from other parts to start business and settle down in the valley.

Starting a business is possible. Settling down is not.

What is your mother tongue and in which state were you born?

3 Make kashmir economically dependent on the rest of India.

Done.

Next.

4 use settlements to dilute the presence of radical muslims and Pakistan / ISIS sympathisers

What will they do for a living? Quite apart from the fact that it is illegal? Have you seen the havoc caused by disregard of the special rights of tribals to own land in Chhatisgarh? Do you want to see the same carpet-bagging scum enter Kashmir?

The question/message has nothing to do with the topic at hand which is about Kashmir's autonomy within India. There are plenty of other topics where your question is not derailing.

My video reply was all the violence we see today ultimately stems from Pakistan trying to take Kashmir by force in 48 and then not complying with implementing the first unconditional part of the UN resolution process which was clearly defined.

Again its going off topic.

Don't feed a troll.

48 started from a rebellion by farmers in Poonch

Feeding a troll: Didn't stop there.

 

[Nilgiri]

Don't feed a troll.



Feeding a troll: Didn't stop there.

I consider him a friend and interact quite positively with him in many other threads....so I just reminded him what the thread is all about. I don't think he meant to troll even if he ended up sort of doing so....but its a common phenomenon in this forum unfortunately.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The struggle for responsible government culminated in the formation of the National Conference which pledged itself to the achievement of responsible government in the state as well as a united and independent India.

Whereas the All State‟s Muslim League Conference in a meeting at Lahore endorsed the Muslim League‟s resolution of 23rd March, 1940 for the creation of Pakistan. But the National Conference leadership repudiated the league resolution for the division of the country and separation of the Muslim majority regions. Sheikh Abdullah attended the session of the All States Muslim League as an observer. After his return to Srinagar he called upon the Muslims to join Indian National Congress which he declared was the only representative organisation of the people of India.

This shows Sheikh Abdullah‟s secular attitude towards Indian National Congress and his relations with India.

On the other hand the development and growth of popular movement and democratic institutions in the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir had its impact on the development of relations between the state and Indian union. The struggle launched by the Indian National Congress to free the country, its policy towards the states and the struggle carried on by All India States‟ People‟s Conference drew the people of Jammu and Kashmir closer into the orbit of the nationalist movement. The All India States People‟s Conference which integrated most of the state level organisations also broadened the base and coordinated its activities with the National Conference. Leaders of the Indian National Congress like Mahatama Gandhi, Jawahar lal Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad took great and active interest not only in people‟s movement in other states but in the state of Jammu and Kashmir also.

Under these circumstances the Dogra rulers of Jammu and Kashmir had no option but to grant concessions to the people and introduce constitutional reforms in the state from time to time. After the partition of India in 1947 and lapse of British paramountcy, the state was plunged into a severe political crisis. Maharaja Hari Singh could not decide the issue of accession for more than two months after the British withdrawal from the subcontinent. Gandhiji‟s paternal advice and Mountbatten‟s persuasion had no effect on the Maharaja Hari Singh. If the Maharaja had decided to accede to India or to Pakistan before 15th August, 1947, much of this trouble and bitterness may well have been avoided. But perhaps, he was fondling with the idea of independence and was relying on his Dogra forces to achieve this end.

At the same time fearing break down of the communication system through Pakistan and the rich export system with India, Maharaja offered to sign Standstill Agreement with both India and Pakistan aiming at continuing the existing relationship pending his final decision regarding the future of the state. Pakistan entered into standstill agreement but Indian government led by Jawaharlal Nehru refused to sign the agreement without the involvement of popular political party, the National Conference.

However Pakistan did not honour her obligations and started an economic blockade of the state cutting off supplies of food, petrol, cloth, salt and other essential commodities in the hope that hunger would secure the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan. Besides, Pakistan also applied military pressure in the form of a full-fledged tribal invasion of the state by 22nd October, 1947. In such dark period of crisis the National Conference organised a people‟s militia of 15,000 men, women and children. The Dogra Army and National Militia tried to hold the enemy from rushing inside the state territory, but prolonged resistance to well trained and well equipped invaders was out of the question.

There were in actuality three distinct sets of actions which ripped apart the artificial structure of J&K, which, like the Austrian realm that became the Holy Roman Empire, was formed by the personal acquisitions of generations of Dogra rulers of Jammu (that rule itself came due to the destruction of the original principality by Ranjit Singh, when the original ruler was supplanted by Gulab Singh's father).

The first was the up-and-down fighting, starting with the flood of Hindu refugees from the riot-ravaged Punjab, who incited the majority community with their tales of horror; the infamous massacres of east Jammu (what is today's Jammu), in which at least 50,000 Muslims were killed [Snedden], leading to the revolt in west Jammu (that forms today's P O K). The Dogra local troops were wiped out in this revolt. Later the kabailis entered the Valley through this part of the state.

The second was the Pakistani conspiracy, which is widely known, when demobilised soldiers of the former British Indian Army were handed over surplus arms, assigned a few PA officers 'on leave', and launched. You can read about this in Akbar Khan's 'Swords Over Kashmir', or, more readable, Tariq Ali, quoted earlier somewhere, "The Bitter Chill of Winter".

The third was a mutiny by the Commander of the Gilgit Scouts, Major Alexander Brown, that was so effective that he got both the Hilal-e-Pakistan and the MBE. The Scouts mutinied, locked up the Dogra Governor, and ambushed a relief column of Sikhs and Dogras, killing them all. Brown then led them on, with supplementary assistance from the State Forces of the Mehtar of Chitral, also a vassal state of J&K, captured Skardu, after a long siege, from its gallant State Forces commandant, a Gurkha officer, captured Kargil, put artillery pieces commanding the Zoji La and besieged undefended Leh (a small party of two Kumaoni officers and around twenty Gurkhas were sent off as a 'forlorn hope' when they volunteered at Gopal Bewoor's challenge). How they were knocked out is a story by itself.

Under these circumstances Maharaja decided to accede to Indian Union to save his state. So on 26th October, 1947 Maharaja signed Instrument of Accession which was accepted by Lord Mountbatten on 27th October, 1947. This accession was legally made by the Maharaja on the advice of Sheikh Abdullah, the leader of All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, the political party commanding the widest popular support in the state. Thereafter, the future relationship between the state and the Union of India had to be based on the Instrument of Accession.

Sheikh Abdullah was actually in the Maharaja's jail at that time, on that day, and his release was one of the conditions of the acceptance of the accession. It is true, however, that he and his party supported the accession and sacrificed lives for it.

In the Instrument of Accession, jurisdiction in matters of Defence, External Affairs and Communications was transferred to the Government of India and the Union Parliament was given power to make laws for the state with respect to these three matters only. The Union Parliament had no jurisdiction in any other matter. The state was reserved powers in regard to all the residuary subjects and the terms of the Instrument of Accession were not to be altered by any subsequent amendment of the Indian Independence Act, unless such an amendment was accepted by the ruler of the state by a supplementary instrument.

Thus, the provisions of the Constitution of India pertaining to the governments in the Indian states were not made applicable to Jammu and Kashmir and the state was administered by an interim government for a long period of nine years in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, which the Ruler of the state had promulgated in 1939.

The key to the situation, then and now.

Though a Muslim state, Jammu and Kashmir agreed to join Indian Union because of communal harmony in Jammu and Kashmir between people of all religions even in the days of British suzerainty.

Can't agree with this.

Another reason which facilitated accession of the state to India was the friendship which had developed between Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru. Sheikh Abdullah‟s movement for freedom from the autocratic rule of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir was supported by Jawaharlal Nehru where as Mohammad Ali Jinnah opposed it. This movement had gained popularity by 1947. Finally the most proximate reason was the attack on Jammu and Kashmir in October, 1947 by tribal raiders, supported by Pakistan. Here, Pakistan had expected that the local population would rise in favour of the tribal raiders but the people of Jammu and Kashmir opposed the invasion of the raiders.

More or less correct, but @Zibago made a point; also, Gilgitis like WAJsal will bristle at the suggestion that they were liberated; they claim that they liberated themselves and then invited Pakistan to take over, which is accurate.

However, the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja Hari Singh was the same as was executed by the rulers of other princely states acceding to India. There was no condition attached to the accession which provided for any separate set of constitutional relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Dominion of India. Leadership of National Conference supported accession and laid no conditions for the accession of the state to India except that they demanded the transfer of power to the people of the state, to which the Indian government was equally committed.

This is incorrect in part, in spirit if not in letter.

There were specific conditions laid down by the Maharaja, and those formed the cornerstone for the subsequent struggles of the Kashmiri leaders with the Indian constitution makers.

Perhaps the proper wording might be,"......There was no condition attached to the accession which provided for any separate set of constitutional relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Dominion of India....but the Indian constitution makers foresaw difficulties and introduced a clause barring shifts of subjects from the respective responsibilities incorporated in the Instrument of Accession to other lists, and thus ensured - accidentally - the perpetual protection of the J&K Assembly from legislation by India.

The tribal invasion of state had turned into a full-fledged war and Pakistan had occupied a large part of the state territory. So, Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor-General of India, while accepting the Instrument of Accession, wrote in a letter to the ruler of the state that as soon as law and order was restored in Jammu and Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders, it was his government‟s wish, in conformity with their policy in case of disputed accession, that “the question of state’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people.” This was not a part of the Instrument of Accession, therefore, it does not and cannot affect the legality of the accession. The same assurance to the people of Jammu and Kashmir was also given thereafter on several occasions by Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister. The congress leaders on their part believed that the people of Jammu and Kashmir guided by their popular leader Sheikh Abdullah would opt for India in case a free vote was taken.

Technically true, but it should be remembered that this was the general Congress outlook, and was formed in the wake of the struggles within princely states for human rights and democratic rights for the subjects of the princes.

Thus the accession was made first and the offer of plebiscite was made unilaterally to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, though it was not asked for, Pakistan did not come into picture anywhere. Mehr Chand Mahajan in his autobiography „Looking Back‟ writes, “On the faith of the document of accession crores of Indian tax payers money has been spent on the defence and development of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. No Indian statesman had any power or right to spend all this money if there was any doubt about the finality of accession. It was a political mistake on the part of the Government of India to have given the promise to 426

hold a plebiscite. The Government of India probably did not realise the political and various other consequences of a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir.”

Murky author, even more murky quotation.

The government of United Kingdom has never questioned and indeed could never question this act of accession which was made directly under the enactments of the British Parliament.

How could it, when the King's representative, Mountbatten, in his capacity as Governor-General, had accepted the accession?

This fact was recognised by the United Nations Commission in its report submitted to the United Nations and defined in its resolution of 13th August, 1948 and 5th January, 1949. Thus, accession was unconditional, voluntary and absolute. It bound the state of Jammu and Kashmir and India legally and constitutionally. With this Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of the Union of India.

Provisionally at first; definitively, with the promulgation of the Constitution of J&K, which states this unequivocally.

As war was going on between India and Pakistan and no agreement on Jammu and Kashmir could take place. So on the advice of Lord Mountbatten, Jawahar lal Nehru referred the matter to the United Nations on 31st December, 1947. K.K. Misra in his book “Kashmir and India’s Foreign Policy”, writes “it was a tactical mistake on the part of the Indian government to have referred the matter to the United Nations before freeing the whole of Jammu and Kashmir from the savage raiders. Besides, by referring the matter to the Security Council, India indirectly became a party to the dispute.”

Immediately after accession the relations of Jammu and Kashmir with Union of India were influenced by the two poles of power in the state, the ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh and the popular leader, Sheikh Abdullah and their mutual relations.

Finally by an agreement between centre and state leadership, Mehr Chand Mahajan remained the Prime Minister of the state and Sheikh Abdullah was appointed Head of the emergency administration on 31st October, 1947. But in subsequent months there was lack of coordination between Prime Minister Mehr Chand Mahajan and Sheikh Abdullah. They made the issue „a point of Honour‟ and therefore centre proposed Mysore model for Jammu and Kashmir.

Under the „Mysore model‟ Sheikh Abdullah was to be made the Prime Minister and Mehr Chand Mahajan as Dewan was to continue as one of the ministers and serve as a link between the Maharaja and the ministry. However, Sheikh Abdullah did not like the Dewan to function as a link between him and the Maharaja while on the contrary Maharaja Hari Singh, wanted the Dewan to continue. Finally, Gopalswami Ayyangar devised another scheme under which the office of Dewan was abolished and Mehr Chand Mahajan was relieved of his office.

Thus, the early phase of the politics of the state as part of independent India was polarised between Maharaja Hari Singh and Sheikh Abdullah. Both were deeply conscious of their respective distinct identities and none was enthusiastic about merging his personality or that of the state in the national mainstream. Temperamental incompatibility, past bitterness, ideological divergence and differences over share of political power rather than differences on status of the state, once again prevented the Maharaja and Sheikh Abdullah from posing any common threat to the state‟s relations with the centre. Moreover, their emotional and political dependence on mutual conflicts on their patrons in New Delhi, Jawahar lal Nehru in case of Sheikh Abdullah and Sardar Patel in case of Hari Singh helped the centre to maintain its grip over the state. As none of them could represent the whole of the state, they looked to the bigger power at the centre to resolve their internal feud. Thus Hari Singh-Sheikh Abdullah polarisation was however, a peculiar mixture of communal, regional and ideological factors.

An excellent description of the early days.

At the United Nations Security Council only a game of power politics was played and its members adjusted their attitude towards the Jammu and Kashmir issue as their foreign policy interests dictated. The Anglo-American block right from beginning had given unflinching support to Pakistan. The American took their cue from the British who had all along a soft corner for Muslim league that had remained aloof from the mainstream of the struggle for independence waged by the Indian National Congress.

Thus, a number of draft resolutions were put forward by the members of United Nations Security Council but they favoured Pakistan predominantly. This attitude of the western powers caused a deep resentment in India. According to Sheikh Abdullah, “Napolean Bonaparte had described the British as a nation of shopkeepers never closing sight of their personal interest. They supported Pakistan because they wanted to use it as a bridge to establish close relations with oil rich Arab nations.” So in the face of these challenges from outside, Sheikh Abdullah and his administration developed a close psychological bond with New Delhi.

The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan when reached India and Pakistan in July, 1948, the members were stunned when they themselves saw that all forces were fighting under the command of Pakistan army. Thus, the truth which India had been pressing the Security Council to recognize about Pakistan‟s actual involvement in the aggression on the state of Jammu and Kashmir finally came out. However, owing to the politics of the super powers the question of Jammu and Kashmir has so far defied the solution. This had enabled Pakistan to continue its occupation of so called Azad Kashmir.

The state of Jammu and Kashmir occupies a special position in comparison to other states because of the strategic location of the state and the unnatural circumstances in which it acceded to India. Another reason that can be cited for the special position of the state is that one third of the state was, and is, still, under the occupation of Pakistan. Even today 25 seats in the legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir have been kept reserved for the representatives of that area.

In 1949, when the Constitution of India was getting its final touches, there was still much uncertainty about the future political status of Jammu and Kashmir. Where as all other Princely states which had acceded to Indian Union consented to their full integration politically, constitutionally, administratively and financially, the state of Jammu and Kashmir, however, hesitated to do so. The representatives of the state participated in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly of India but its leadership wanted a far greater measure of autonomy than the constitution of India had envisaged for the other states of the Union of India. They demanded that state should be allowed to have its own Constituent Assembly to draft separate constitution within the framework of the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja. Consequently special constitutional provision in the form of Article 370 was put in the Constitution of India, whereby the state was given the right to convene a Constituent Assembly and frame its own Constitution.

At the same time the relations between the state and the Centre were to be governed under Article 370. According to it the Indian Parliament could make laws for the state on matters that correspond to the subjects specified in the Instrument of Accession i.e. Defence, External Affairs and Communications. Also the President of India was given the power to authorise legislation on other matters, but only with the concurrence of the state government. Finally Article 370 gave power to the President of India, to abrogate the article or modify its provisions provided he secured the recommendations of the future Constituent Assembly of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Indian Constitution took effect formally on 26th January, 1950. In this Constitution only Article 1 and 370 were applied to the Jammu and Kashmir state. Article 1 defined the territories of India and specifically included the Jammu and Kashmir state within its boundaries. In exercise of the power conferred on him by the Article 370, Dr Rajendra Prasad, the then President of India passed a Presidential order called the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1950, defining the jurisdiction of the Union Parliament vis-a-vis the state of Jammu and Kashmir and enumerating the specific provisions of the Constitution of India that could be made applicable to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The provisions were only the elaboration of the subjects which had already been mentioned in the Instrument of Accession and which had since been incorporated in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. The reaction of the people of the state to the implementation of Indian Constitution was one of total satisfaction. In a speech to Jammu Bar Association on 5th February, 1950, Sheikh Abdullah, the then Prime Minister, told his audience that, “India’s republican Constitution itself has made it clear that Jammu and Kashmir has an honourable and secure place in India”. After this the state Constituent Assembly was convened in 1951.

Up till now Sheikh Abdullah was happy with the central leadership because he was given what he wanted i.e. special status under Article 370 and Constituent Assembly to frame its own Constitution and thus placed Jammu and Kashmir on a different footing from other states of India. But, the state leaders were far from being satisfied. They said in their speeches that they wanted the maximum possible autonomy for the state. Sheikh Abdullah, the Prime Minister of the state, after some time showed signs of change in his attitude towards India which was visible through his speeches. In one of the speech he said that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was a sovereign body which was free to give shape to the destiny of the state in any manner it pleased. Sometimes he talked about the independence of the state. This changed attitude of Sheikh Abdullah and such statements raised a controversy, so much so that the central leadership decided to start a dialogue with Sheikh Abdullah and his colleagues.

The dialogue resulted into the Delhi Agreement of 1952. The Centre-State leadership agreed that the Hereditary Ruler will be replaced by the elected head of state designated as Sadar-i-Riyasat recognised by the President of India and hold office during the pleasure of the President. Further it was agreed that the provisions relating to citizenship and fundamental rights should be made applicable to the state but with certain modifications. The Indian flag was to be recognised supreme and use of state flag and an official language of its own sanctioned and all residuary powers were to vest with the state.

However, Sheikh Abdullah and his colleagues differed with the Union Government in their interpretation of the provisions of the Delhi Agreement. They felt that the agreement had put the seal on the autonomy of the state. On the other hand central leadership felt that as soon as the special circumstances ceased to exist, state would be fully integrated into the union of India, of course, with the consent of the people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Under the provisions of Delhi Agreement hereditary rulership was abolished but no steps were taken to implement other provisions. This created a chaotic situation in the state which ultimately led to dismissal and arrest of Sheikh Abdullah on 8th August, 1953.

After the dismissal and detention of Sheikh Abdullah, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was appointed the Prime Minister of the state. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad obtained the unanimous vote of confidence from the state legislative assembly. On 15th February, 1954 the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir ratified state‟s accession to India. Further to strengthen the relations between centre and state of Jammu and Kashmir Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad had abolished on 13th April, 1954 the custom duties on goods entering the state which resulted in lowering prices of essential commodities.

Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad secured the approval of the Constituent Assembly of the state to implement the Delhi Agreement. Accordingly, in May, 1954, the provisions of the Constitution of India as envisaged by the Delhi Agreement were also made applicable to the state of Jammu and Kashmir and it was brought within the Constitutional framework of India.

The process of Constitution making was also expedited during the regime of Bakshi. The Constituent Assembly drew up a Constitution for the state by amending suitably the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, 1939. It completed this task in 1956 and the Constitution was finally approved and adopted unanimously on 17th November, 1956. It came into effect on 26th January, 1957. The people of the state had chosen 26th January, the Republic day of India as the date for enforcement of their Constitution and this is the evidence of the emotional integration with the rest of India.

The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir declared the state of Jammu and Kashmir to be an integral part of the Union of India. The territory of the state will comprise which on 15th August, 1947, were under the sovereignty of the ruler of the state. Most of its provisions were patterned and borrowed from the Constitution of India though subject to certain exceptions and modifications depending upon the local needs and the exigencies of the state. The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is partly rigid and partly flexible. The proviso to section 147 specifies those features of the constitution which are unalterable or rigid. The state legislature is debarred from undertaking any amendment of the constitution affecting the state‟s accession to India or the extent of the executive and legislative powers of the state. Other matters like defence, external affairs and communication, in the constitution being outside the scope of the legislature, may be regarded as rigid for the purpose of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution but they are flexible in so far as the powers of the Union Parliament are concerned.

credit: some obscure author whose work was saved on my hard disk. Don't recall the name

@Stephen Cohen for your perusal. Sheikh Abdullah and the National Conference, which fought for a special status under constitution of India for J&K, increasingly sought to abdicate the responsibility of holding a plebiscite by early 1950 and tried to keep up a charade by insisting on the special provisions of the State under the Indian Constitution. Shall be posting write up on the same shortly.

It is pertinent to note, that I have brought out a rough sketch of the duplicity of both the Kashmiris themselves and the abject failure of the Indian government and politicians during the same period.

Your contention on Article 370, while justified, falls flat as there was no concentrated legal attempt by India to integrate Kashmir in a time bound manner. Even today there is a hesitancy in suspension of Article 370 by enacting a law in the parliament.

You had stated about Indira Gandhi's attempt at subverting these clauses to better integrate the state. But it could not be further from the truth. She had the necessary strength in the Parliament post 1971, why did she not enact the amendment when she could get one through to insert socialism into the preamble to the constitution? Why, indeed, she did not settle the question of Kashmir at Simla itself?

The answer, my friend, is not simple. It is a deliberate attempt at sabotaging the nation, the logic of which I am unable to fathom. That is why, killing the Kashmiris on the street means nothing when your own laws prevent them from being made Indians.




How is Article 370 an impediment? When as per J&K's own constitution it is an integral part of India, what makes the indian politicians hesitate from enacting a law to repeal the article itself and incorporate it as all other princely states had been?

That is why, we have been saying that the issue requires to be settled politically. Brute military force is not the answer in valley.

For the average Kashmiri, it is a fight for 'azadi' @Levina as our own policies have allowed an environment wherein the complete and gradual integration of the state as not taken place.

So how is @Joe Shearer wrong, as you quoted earlier? If you look at things from a Kashmiri's perspective, they have not been given a chance to integrate with the nation. A policy of 'ghetto' structure had been formulated by Nehru against all logic and advice on the basis that the violence of partition required the displaced Muslims to be placed together in order to feel 'secure'. Instead of working to improve the security for all citizens irrespective of the religious identity, he proceeded to put the Muslims in a situation wherein they got isolated and felt surrounded by a hostile Hindu population.

Have you ever had the chance to visit Islamabad at Deoband (there is an Islamabad there behind the seminary)?

There a muslim once asked me "aapki hindustani sarkar ne hamarey liye kya kia hai" It was a shocker for me.

General suggestion: Read M. K. Teng. Some of it is tendentious, but this man of high reputation has produced a work of high reputation.

http://ikashmir.net/article370/doc/article370.pdf[/quote][/QUOTE]

I consider him a friend and interact quite positively with him in many other threads....so I just reminded him what the thread is all about. I don't think he meant to troll even if he ended up sort of doing so....but its a common phenomenon in this forum unfortunately.

No, I like his posts in general, but his opening post here was a crushing disappointment. All that work for this comment?

It struck me that there was a lot of waffle - an awful lot of waffle - about Article 370, mostly by people, the Sanghis, who haven't read it at all.

From a bad source,

370. Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution,—

(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply now in relation to the state of Jammu and Kashmir;[a]
(b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said state shall be limited to—
(i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with theGovernment of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and
(ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.
Explanation: For the purpose of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognized by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadr-i-Riyasat (now Governor) of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office.[1][9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370#cite_note-11

(c) the provisions of article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation to that State;
(d) such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify:
Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub-clause (b) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State:
Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred to in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that Government.
(2) If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or in the second provison to sub-clause (d) of that clause be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon.

(3) 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:
Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.[10]

There are many thousands of ideas all around the world that can be applied in Kashmir context.

There has to be more trust between Kashmiris and rest of India, otherwise everything gets stuck in blanket article 370 type banter and people simply do not get how Kashmir actually joined India in the first place.

I was wondering if any such offer was made by Patel/Nehru etc. to the Nizam of Hyderabad before operation polo? i.e one of special autonomous status without need for what eventually happened?

Those discussions took place in calmer times when the authoritative Nawab of Chhatri was the Nizam's Prime Minister. He was too upright a personality to stand for Rizvi's street corner Islamism, and resigned, when the dialogue stopped. V. P. Menon gives a partial account.

Basically it boiled down to Government of India trying desperately to stop the Nizam from sending all his huge fortune to Pakistan. He liked Pakistan, and Jinnah adored Hyderabad, making the awful mistake of rejecting a mutual plebiscite proposal for Kashmir and for Hyderabad; of course, that would have put Sheikh Abdullah's noise sadly out of joint!

 

[Soumitra]

This was the option around which two generations have broken our heads. We can amend the Constitution to say that what we said is no longer true, or that we have changed our minds. We cannot amend the Constitution to say for the J&K state constituent assembly what it could have said. We cannot amend the Constitution to make the obligation to them disappear.

I disagree with you there. two generations have NOT broken their heads. Till now there were only congies and bleeding heart liberals and they will never do something to "alienate the minorities" even at the cost of the nation's integrity

It is now that a nationalist govt has come to full power. They can deliberate and amend the constitution and make tis mistake right

Your argument is that since J&K constituent assembly does not exist then We cant amend an obligation to them

My counter argument
There are 2 parties to an obligation. If one party no longer exists then the obligation transfers to the legal heir of the non existent party. You can renegotiate the obligation with the legal heir. If there is no legal heir you are only morally bound by the obligation not legally. If the circumstances change you can amend or discard the obligation unilaterally.

It is like @Joe Shearer and I have an agreement - an obligation. But soon after that @Joe Shearer commits suicide (J&K constituent assembly is dissolved). Now if there is a legal heir I have the obligation to the legal heir otherwise it is only just a moral obligation to me not a legal one

Now either you consider the legislative assembly of J&K as the legal heir of the constituent assembly of J&K and renegotiate the article 370 with them or if you dont consider the legislative assembly as the legal heir then we can unilaterally amend the article

It may be "morally wrong" (in eyes of bleeding heart liberals like you) but legally it will be OK.

 

[Hellfire]

The Terms as @Joe Shearer (sir, still trying to collate with the time constraints as busy somewhere else, thanks for corrections/clarifications) mentioned in #74



Instrument of Accession executed by Maharajah Hari Singh on October 26, 1947


Whereas the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provides that as from the fifteenth day of August, 1947, there shall be set up an independent Dominion known as INDIA, and that the Government of India Act 1935, shall with such omissions, additions, adaptations and modifications as the Governor General may by order specify, be applicable to the Dominion of India.

And whereas the Government of India Act, 1935, as so adapted by the Governor General, provides that an Indian State may accede to the Dominion of India by an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof.

Now, therefore, I Shriman Inder Mahinder Rajrajeswar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singhji, Jammu & Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbet adi Deshadhipati, Ruler of Jammu & Kashmir State, in the exercise of my Sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and



1. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the Governor General of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes of the Dominion shall by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession but subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Dominion, exercise in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as "this State") such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in force in the Dominion of India, on the 15th day of August 1947, (which Act as so in force is hereafter referred to as "the Act').


2. I hereby assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given to provisions of the Act within this State so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession.


3. I accept the matters specified in the schedule hereto as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make law for this State.


4. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India on the assurance that if an agreement is made between the Governor General and the Ruler of this State whereby any functions in relation to the administration in this State of any law of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the Ruler of the State, then any such agreement shall be construed and have effect accordingly.


5. The terms of this my Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment is accepted by me by Instrument supplementary to this Instrument.


6. Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make any law for this State authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose, but I hereby undertake that should the Dominion for the purpose of a Dominion law which applies in this State deem it necessary to acquire any land, I will at their request acquire the land at their expense, or, if the land belongs to me transfer it to them on such terms as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India.


7. Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit in any way to acceptance of any future constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into agreement with the Government of India under any such future constitution.


8. Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my Sovereignty in and over this State, or, save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or the validity of any law at present in force in this State.


9. I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this State and that any reference in this Instrument to me or to the Ruler of the State is to be construed as including a reference to my heirs and successors.
Given under my hand this 26th day of October, nineteen hundred and forty seven.

Hari Singh

Maharajadhiraj of Jammu and Kashmir State.





ACCEPTANCE OF ACCESSION BY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL OF INDIA

I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession. Dated this twenty seventh day of October, nineteen hundred and forty seven.

Mountbatten of Burma

Governor General of India.






SCHEDULE OF INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION
THE MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE DOMINION
LEGISLATURE MAY MAKE LAWS FOR THIS STATE

A. Defence

1. The naval, military and air forces of the Dominion and any other armed forces raised or maintained by the Dominion; any armed forces, including forces raised or maintained by an acceding State, which are attached to, or operating with, any of the armed forces of the Dominion.

2. Naval, military and air force works, administration of cantonment areas.

3. Arms, fire-arms, ammunition.

4. Explosives.

B. External Affairs

1. External affairs; the implementing of treaties and agreements with other countries; extradition, including the surrender of criminals and accused persons to parts of His Majesty's Dominions outside India.

2. Admission into, and emigration and expulsion from, India, including in relation thereto the regulation of the movements in India of persons who are not British subjects domiciled in India or subjects of any acceding State; pilgrimages to places beyond India.

3. Naturalisation.

C. Communications

1. Posts and telegraphs, including telephones, wireless, broadcasting, and other like forms of communication.

2. Federal railways; the regulation of all railways other than minor railways in respect of safety, maximum and minimum rates and fares, station and services terminal charges, interchange of traffic and the responsibility of railway administrations as carriers of goods and passengers; the regulation of minor railways in respect of safety and the responsibility of the administrations of such railways as carriers of goods and passengers.

3. Maritime shipping and navigation, including shipping and navigation on tidal waters; Admiralty jurisdiction.

4. Port quarantine.

5. Major ports, that is to say, the declaration and delimitation of such ports, and the constitution and powers of Port Authorities therein.

6. Aircraft and air navigation; the provision of aerodromes; regulation and organisation of air traffic and of aerodromes.

7. Lighthouses, including lightships, beacons and other provisions for the safety of shipping and aircraft.

8. Carriage of passengers and goods by sea or by air.

9. Extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of the police force belonging to any unit to railway area outside that unit.

D. Ancillary

1. Election to the Dominion Legislature, subject to the provisions of the Act and of any Order made thereunder.

2. Offences against laws with respect to any of the aforesaid matters.

3. Inquiries and statistics for the purposes of any of the aforesaid matters.

4. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts with respect to any of the aforesaid matters but, except with the consent of the Ruler of the acceding State, not so as to confer any jurisdiction or powers upon any courts other than courts ordinarily exercising jurisdiction in or in relation to that State.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I disagree with you there. two generations have NOT broken their heads. Till now there were only congies and bleeding heart liberals and they will never do something to "alienate the minorities" even at the cost of the nation's integrity

It is now that a nationalist govt has come to full power. They can deliberate and amend the constitution and make tis mistake right

I thought you would fall on this argument. Rather, these two arguments: constitutional amendment and the inheritance of the Maharaja's powers.

It is incorrect, because it is not a question of a constitutional amendment. It is a question of the legal foundation of India's claim to Kashmir.

It is also incorrect to think that your 'nationalist' citizen-hating government can select anyone and everyone to be the designated heir.

Try to follow the argument, which I am actually repeating with regard to the first part: you may not have paid attention the first time.

• The only legal basis for India's claim to Kashmir is the Maharaja's sovereign decision, which was within his powers.
• If that is our foundation stone, we must agree that he was a sovereign, with the authority and power to take sovereign decisions.
• That means that his decision to hand over three items and three alone to the central government is a decision within his powers.
• That also means, conversely, that his decision to leave the other powers to his constituent assembly (called by his ordinance in May 1948) is also sovereign and within his powers.
• When the constituent assembly retained all the powers, it became the heir to the Maharaja's sovereign power to exercise those powers. It did not retain them, however, it formed a constitution that devolved those powers to the State Assembly.
• On its dissolution of itself, the State Assembly directly inherited those powers withheld by the Maharaja from the central government. THE STATE ASSEMBLY IS THE ONLY LEGAL HEIR OF THE MAHARAJA. THE PEOPLE - PERMANENT RESIDENTS - OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR ARE THE ONLY LEGAL HEIRS OF THE MAHARAJA..
• Sadly for your arguments, while the Constituent Assembly no longer exists for an outright abolition of Article 370, in legislative terms, that does not matter at all. Article 370 only restricted the right to grab the state's rights, those besides the three devolved rights of defence, foreign affairs and communications, and subjected any move to a one-time ordinance by the President, thereafter to do whatever it wished to with the consent of the State Assembly, and only with that consent.
• In effect, overthrowing Article 370 is no longer possible; positive and cooperative legislation is always possible.

Your argument is that since J&K constituent assembly does not exist then We cant amend an obligation to them

My counter argument
There are 2 parties to an obligation. If one party no longer exists then the obligation transfers to the legal heir of the non existent party. You can renegotiate the obligation with the legal heir. If there is no legal heir you are only morally bound by the obligation not legally. If the circumstances change you can amend or discard the obligation unilaterally.

It is like @Joe Shearer and I have an agreement - an obligation. But soon after that @Joe Shearer commits suicide (J&K constituent assembly is dissolved). Now if there is a legal heir I have the obligation to the legal heir otherwise it is only just a moral obligation to me not a legal one

Now either you consider the legislative assembly of J&K as the legal heir of the constituent assembly of J&K and renegotiate the article 370 with them or if you dont consider the legislative assembly as the legal heir then we can unilaterally amend the article

It may be "morally wrong" (in eyes of bleeding heart liberals like you) but legally it will be OK.

There are certain matters that can be inherited. For instance, criminal matters cannot be inherited. I cannot prosecute you for the crimes of your father.

The consent to abrogate Article 370 lay with the Constituent Assembly. That was a specific duty, and not a general inheritance of sovereign rights. Sovereign rights can be transferred; it is not necessary that those should be extinguished with the extinction of the original sovereign. A specified, named actor cannot be replaced. The Constituent Assembly cannot be replaced by the State Assembly. It could do things that the State Assembly could not and cannot. They are not in that sense substitutions. Heritage does not bring with it substitutability.

Nice try.

@hellfire

You are doing brilliantly. Just do it at your own pace, unhurried. That gives us time to examine each post in some detail, with some quality time spent on it.

 

[Hellfire]

48 started from a rebellion by farmers in Poonch

I somehow didn't notice this ...


Incorrect. The insurrection in Poonch was the direct result of the demobilisation in aftermath of World War 2 wherein many locals had served as soldiers in the British Indian Army at the Burma Front.

These men wanted to be absorbed into the state forces (which the Maharaja refused) and had issues of unpaid arrears. This was conveniently linked to other factors wherein the general feeling of antagonism to the Maharaja's rule was clubbed with these factors to create an incident which was purely 'political'.

To claim otherwise is to do exactly what we have been doing in pre-independence era (and indeed in post-independence era) - claim that 1857 was 'First War of Independence'. A fallacy at best and totally delusive in impolite terms.

@Joe Shearer

Legally, Hyderabad has not acceded to India either, if one does look at the pertinent points raised by AG Noorani with respect to the Government of India policy on Instrument of Accession and the letter of Nizam itself . Hence, my contention that India could have absorbed Kashmir on similar lines and diluted Article 370 over the period and abolish it altogether at opportune time. Logical reasoning - why dither here too!!

 

[Soumitra]

• On its dissolution of itself, the State Assembly directly inherited those powers withheld by the Maharaja from the central government. THE STATE ASSEMBLY IS THE ONLY LEGAL HEIR OF THE MAHARAJA. THE PEOPLE - PERMANENT RESIDENTS - OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR ARE THE ONLY LEGAL HEIRS OF THE MAHARAJA..

The consent to abrogate Article 370 lay with the Constituent Assembly. That was a specific duty, and not a general inheritance of sovereign rights. Sovereign rights can be transferred; it is not necessary that those should be extinguished with the extinction of the original sovereign. A specified, named actor cannot be replaced. The Constituent Assembly cannot be replaced by the State Assembly. It could do things that the State Assembly could not and cannot. They are not in that sense substitutions. Heritage does not bring with it substitutability.

Your red and blue marked arguments are contradictory to each other.

First you say that state assembly is the legal heir of the maharaja. Since he created the constituent assembly ispo facto his legal heir is competent to restart/replace the constituent assembly.

But in the blue point you say constituent assembly cant be replaced by state assembly.

Leaving these technicalities aside let me ask you a simple question. If the central govt through a constitutional amendment with 2/3rd majority in both houses of parliament and the majority in the state legislatures decides to remove Article 370 from the constitution and the president signs the same then who has the locus standi to oppose such a motion?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Your red and blue marked arguments are contradictory to each other.

First you say that state assembly is the legal heir of the maharaja. Since he created the constituent assembly ispo facto his legal heir is competent to restart/replace the constituent assembly.

But in the blue point you say constituent assembly cant be replaced by state assembly.

Leaving these technicalities aside let me ask you a simple question. If the central govt through a constitutional amendment with 2/3rd majority in both houses of parliament and the majority in the state legislatures decides to remove Article 370 from the constitution and the president signs the same then who has the locus standi to oppose such a motion?

Nothing contradictory, just your unwillingness to face facts. Which is quite understandable.

Inheritance is not a blanket inheritance. Specific named individual and personalised tasks, personalised with regards to an institution as well as an individual, may or may not be translatable. For instance, you cannot inherit a power of attorney.

The State Assembly was not created by the Maharaja directly. It was created by the Constitution, written by the Constituent Assembly, with powers clearly defined by the Constituent Assembly. Those powers included, for instance, the power to amend the J&K Constitution; it did not include the power to create a constitution de novo. So to argue that the State Assembly as the ultimate heir of the sovereign powers of the Maharaja with respect to the powers of administration exercised by him is equivalent to the Constituent Assembly being the heir of the sovereign powers of the Maharaja with respect to the powers of creation of a constitution is an obviously and visibly fallacious argument.

You sound like a corporate type. If you are, let me know, and I will put it to you in corporate terms, in terms of the delegation of power by a Board to a Chief Executive, and the delegation of power to delegate his own powers, to an unlimited or to a limited extent, by that Chief Executive to some subordinate.

With regard to your simple question, the day that such an amendment passes into law, that is, receives the President's consent, if not checked by the Supreme Court declaring it hostile to the basic structure of the Constitution, that day Jammu and Kashmir ceases to remain part of the Union of India, as it will have violated the Instrument of Accession.

There is no other former princely state that had, or has, that position in our Constitution.

 

[Soumitra]

Nothing contradictory, just your unwillingness to face facts. Which is quite understandable.

Inheritance is not a blanket inheritance. Specific named individual and personalised tasks, personalised with regards to an institution as well as an individual, may or may not be translatable. For instance, you cannot inherit a power of attorney.

The State Assembly was not created by the Maharaja directly. It was created by the Constitution, written by the Constituent Assembly, with powers clearly defined by the Constituent Assembly. Those powers included, for instance, the power to amend the J&K Constitution; it did not include the power to create a constitution de novo. So to argue that the State Assembly as the ultimate heir of the sovereign powers of the Maharaja with respect to the powers of administration exercised by him is equivalent to the Constituent Assembly being the heir of the sovereign powers of the Maharaja with respect to the powers of creation of a constitution is an obviously and visibly fallacious argument.

You sound like a corporate type. If you are, let me know, and I will put it to you in corporate terms, in terms of the delegation of power by a Board to a Chief Executive, and the delegation of power to delegate his own powers, to an unlimited or to a limited extent, by that Chief Executive to some subordinate.

Clearly your interpretation and my interpretation of the law are different and none of us can convince the other. Till the supreme court gives a judgement one way or the other none of us can know who is right and who is wrong

With regard to your simple question, the day that such an amendment passes into law, that is, receives the President's consent, if not checked by the Supreme Court declaring it hostile to the basic structure of the Constitution, that day Jammu and Kashmir ceases to remain part of the Union of India, as it will have violated the Instrument of Accession.

There is no other former princely state that had, or has, that position in our Constitution.

You have not answered my question. It is that WHO has the locus standi to oppose the removal of the article 370?
It is NOT WHAT HAPPENS after the removal of article 370?

If according to your interpretation the removal violates the instrument of accession and J&K becomes independent then ispo facto the J&K State assembly has the mandate under the Instument of accession

You cannot say "If you remove this article then I will be independent but I dont have any power to negotiate with you regarding the continuation or removal of the said article"

 

[Stephen Cohen]

With regard to your simple question, the day that such an amendment passes into law, that is, receives the President's consent, if not checked by the Supreme Court declaring it hostile to the basic structure of the Constitution, that day Jammu and Kashmir ceases to remain part of the Union of India, as it will have violated the Instrument of Accession.

There is no other former princely state that had, or has, that position in our Constitution.

You are totally wrong here

If Article 370 is abolished -- But it will NOT be abolished for poilitical and geo strategic reasons

NOTHING will happen

Why because India is a UNION of states

That is Article One of the Constitution

Article One overrides everything ; It expressly prohibits secession

Indian territory can be parted ONLY under Article 356 as we gave away some to Bangladesh

India is NOT a federation or a confederation

Indian Union (or fedreration )is not the result of an agreement by the states and

No state has right to secede from the Union /federation

The constitution explicitly uses the word - India is a UNION of states

 

[Joe Shearer]

Clearly your interpretation and my interpretation of the law are different and none of us can convince the other. Till the supreme court gives a judgement one way or the other none of us can know who is right and who is wrong

There is a slight difference in the position from which we argue these points, but I shall let that pass. I have quoted authorities, you have not; that is another slight difference.

You have not answered my question. It is that WHO has the locus standi to oppose the removal of the article 370?
It is NOT WHAT HAPPENS after the removal of article 370?

If according to your interpretation the removal violates the instrument of accession and J&K becomes independent then ispo facto the J&K State assembly has the mandate under the Instument of accession

You cannot say "If you remove this article then I will be independent but I dont have any power to negotiate with you regarding the continuation or removal of the said article"

That is a possibility, but the stronger legal possibility is the undivided people of the undivided state have the complete right. The J&K State Assembly is an assembly of the incomplete state.

You can say precisely that; in dissolving Article 370, by whatever means you choose, you dissolve our bonds with the Union of India, with nothing to replace it. And, in fact, they precisely have no power to negotiate continuation or removal of Article 370.

Have you not seen how the Sanghis in Delhi have baulked at the prospects pointed out to them by their legal experts of the consequences of any action removing Art. 370? Do you think it mere coincidence that their voice on this 'burning issue' has become honeyed and seductive? Why do you think the likes of Modi have beaten a diplomatic retreat?

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@Joe Shearer

The Supreme Court remarked in a 2007 case that India was an

“Indestructible Union of destructible units”.

Historians have attributed the justification for Article 3 to the peculiar circumstances prevailing at the time of Independence, with the princely states having not been fully integrated, and the demands for reorganising the States on linguistic basis posing a serious challenge to the nationhood.

http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2825/stories/20111216282501600.htm

The INTERNAL boundaries can be changed

The states can be redrawn ; merged or reduced in size

But NO secession can ever happen

 

[Soumitra]

Have you not seen how the Sanghis in Delhi have baulked at the prospects pointed out to them by their legal experts of the consequences of any action removing Art. 370? Do you think it mere coincidence that their voice on this 'burning issue' has become honeyed and seductive? Why do you think the likes of Modi have beaten a diplomatic retreat?

they have not beaten a retreat. You pick and choose your battles.

1 there is GST which is neccesary for the development of the country. much work has been done and hopefully it will be passed this session

2 there is UCC - it is for the integrity of the nation. the process has started with the law commission asked to prepare a draft for the same

3 Article 370 regarding unity and integrity of the nation will come after that . Waiting for a year or two to get the necessary numbers in the Rajya Sabha is good strategy

4 Ram Mandir - It is a religious and emotive issue. that will be tackled last (hopefully by that time SC judgement will come)