1) I have been asking the Pakistani members to please furnish the article which is in their constitution(Ayieen e Pakistan) so that we also know how far it prohibits the people and what are the conditions. You may quote the article as well.
2) Most probably to my understanding, the paper work on article 370 is to show that Kashmir is an autonomous body and non Kashmiris will not get any land there. If there was no UN resolution, which means no dispute, then this article was not at all needed.
I have in fact cited the origins; it was part of the Ranbir Code, and wherever it is not superseded, it remains the law of the land. As you know, not everything in the CrPC and the IPC is covered by the Indian Constitution; much of these two flow from earlier legislation by the British. Until specifically repealed or replaced, that law remains law. Such is the case in Pakistan. They, too, have inherited laws from earlier British legislation. Ironically, the law against attacks on religion is identical on both sides of the border, except that Pakistan has, very unwisely, made certain additions (during the military dictatorship eras, I think) which has made life very, very difficult for all minority religions in that country. But both are the same, both even bear the same numbers (Sec. 295) and both show us where the origin of the restriction of the right to own property was. It was not in British legislation, it was not in Indian legislation, it was not in post-independence Kashmiri legislation, it was in pre-independence Kashmiri legislation.
1) I am not justifying the article 370.
2) Because India has been abiding the first condition of plebiscite through Article 370(no domicile to non Kashmiris), in Kashmir, how far has Pakistan abide AtLeast this condition 'Officially'.
If not then, India must play a bigger role and request the UN to revoke the UN resolution or set a time line.
Please read up on the subject.
After the initial resolution, which was fair and even-handed, the UN succumbed to Pakistani propaganda, and subsequent resolutions and actions are highly injurious to India's case.
Our case is simply that since the Simla Pact between Indira Gandhi and Z. A. Bhutto, the Kashmir dispute is a bilateral one. Period. We do not recognise the jurisdiction of the UN over the Kashmir issue any longer.
There is no question, therefore, of asking the UN anything.
Parliament rejected the UN resolution when it declared J&K as an integral part of India. UN has got no say in internal issues of India, India will not allow any such interference. Indian members must stop talking about the UN resolution because it goes against the stand of our country.
You are right, for the wrong reasons.
No body is against decision of Parliament, but you should talk about ways, how you can use this same UN resolution, if it is possible to use against Pakistan in Kashmir, to get back the PÖK.
We have, by treaty with Pakistan, rejected the jurisdiction of the UN over Kashmir issues.
I was not interested in UN resolution relating India, but I was interested to know if Pakistan has anything like article 370, because they are the one who bring up Kashmir.
On the contrary.
Pakistan has swallowed up Gilgit-Baltistan, and now calls it the Northern Territory.
This is the exact opposite of Indian policy.
Some people say that the Indian right wing religious elements, the Hindutvavadis, are nothing but a semiticised form of Hinduism. I am sorry that politically and diplomatically, there are some people who want Indian policy to be a mirror image of Pakistani policy.
