3 ms·

Except the special status of Kashmir is laid down in the Constitution of India; with the provision that any change to that effect should be mutually agreed on.

by xrisk 7y ago

Except the special status of Kashmir is laid down in the Constitution of India; with the provision that any change to that effect should be mutually agreed on. To expand; India has the concept of "Union Territories" where the some matters like law and order (and others, I'm not an expert) which are usually State matters are controlled by the Central (Federal) government; What's been done here is the effective equivalent of taking any already well-established state (say Maharashtra) with an elected legislature and converting it into a Union Territory; thereby stripping the State of a lot of power.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> the special status of Kashmir is laid down in the Constitution of India; with the provision that any change to that effect should be mutually agreed on Wikipedia says Article 35A "was added to the Constitution through a Presidential Order" [1] via powers granted by Article 370 [2]. I am unfamiliar with the Indian Constitution. But 370(3) gives the President the unilateral right to "by public notification, declare that [Article 370] shall cease to be operative" pending only "the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State" [2]. (Recommendation, not consent.) There is no requirement for mutual agreement. Article 370, and thus 35A, are wholly executive prerogatives. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_35A_of_the_Constitution_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_35A_of_the_Constitutio... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370_of_the_Constitution_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370_of_the_Constitutio...
- xrisk 7y ago
  You are probably correct; IANAL and have only a cursory knowledge of the matter. But I don't believe any recommendation from the Constituent Assembly was received to the best of my knowledge.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > I don't believe any recommendation from the Constituent Assembly was received to the best of my knowledge The Constituent Assembly provided its recommendation in the 1950s [1]. (I think this is where Article 35A came from.) The Assembly doesn't appear to have convened since 1954. It thus makes sense to interpret the recommendation requirement in 370(3) as a prohibition on the Indian President cancelling Article 370 before the Assembly had a chance to make its circa 1954 recommendations. (Surprisingly, one of those changes was not a mutuality requirement on termination of the Article.) [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_Assembly_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_Assembly_of_Jammu_...
- addicted 7y ago
  This sounds like executive privilege in the US, which basically is unilaterally added or withdrawn by the current president. If so, that would explain why no one in that article is complaining about the legality of the move.

by xrisk 7y ago

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> the special status of Kashmir is laid down in the Constitution of India; with the provision that any change to that effect should be mutually agreed on Wikipedia says Article 35A "was added to the Constitution through a Presidential Order" [1] via powers granted by Article 370 [2]. I am unfamiliar with the Indian Constitution. But 370(3) gives the President the unilateral right to "by public notification, declare that [Article 370] shall cease to be operative" pending only "the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State" [2]. (Recommendation, not consent.) There is no requirement for mutual agreement. Article 370, and thus 35A, are wholly executive prerogatives. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_35A_of_the_Constitution_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_35A_of_the_Constitutio... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370_of_the_Constitution_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370_of_the_Constitutio...

xrisk 7y ago
You are probably correct; IANAL and have only a cursory knowledge of the matter. But I don't believe any recommendation from the Constituent Assembly was received to the best of my knowledge.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > I don't believe any recommendation from the Constituent Assembly was received to the best of my knowledge The Constituent Assembly provided its recommendation in the 1950s [1]. (I think this is where Article 35A came from.) The Assembly doesn't appear to have convened since 1954. It thus makes sense to interpret the recommendation requirement in 370(3) as a prohibition on the Indian President cancelling Article 370 before the Assembly had a chance to make its circa 1954 recommendations. (Surprisingly, one of those changes was not a mutuality requirement on termination of the Article.) [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_Assembly_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_Assembly_of_Jammu_...
addicted 7y ago
This sounds like executive privilege in the US, which basically is unilaterally added or withdrawn by the current president. If so, that would explain why no one in that article is complaining about the legality of the move.