• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir

Kirran

Premium Member
So to give people a quick low-down on what the deal is: during the transition to independence of former British India, what has become Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) accepted coming under Indian rule so they could get more autonomy than they thought they would have if they'd gone to Pakistan, although a lot of the area claimed as Jammu and Kashmir, which was formerly the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, did go to Pakistan in the form of present-day Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, and to China as Aksai Chin.

The border has remained disputed between those three countries ever since. But anyway, part of the deal under which Indian J&K accepted being part of India was that there'd be a special compact between the state and the central government, not enjoyed by any other state in India.

This compact basically said that J&K could have their own flag, that people from other states of India weren't allowed to buy land and property there and (a big one!) that laws decided by the union government would only be imposed upon J+K if they were ratified by their own state legislative assembly. With the exception of those pertaining to communication, defence and foreign policy, which would be applied to them whether they liked it or not, as with every other state in India. J&K sent representatives to the union government's Parliament (Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha) like any other state in India.

Right, so that was a pretty good deal. But there were nevertheless ongoing tensions over the state throughout Indian history really, due to different separatist groups and Islamist factors, identity issues, competing claims of India and Pakistan and both of them interfering with each other and trying to take their claim, etc.

This culminated in, last year, the imposition of 'President's rule' (direct union government, temporary removal of self-government) over Jammu and Kashmir after the BJP's coalition with the regional Jammu and Kashmir People's Democratic Party (PDP) broke down, and the union government said that concerns of terrorism and so on required that they impose President's rule.

In recent days, the union government has seriously put the military in, imposed curfews and put tabs on political leaders in J&K, leading up to their putting the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, to the Rajya Sabha. And basically, it's going through.

What this Bill means is that Indian-administered J&K will be split into two (Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh) union territories. There are a few union territories in India. What this means is that it will no longer have any of the special privileges regarding union laws and exclusion of non-residents buying property, but also it will no longer have its own democratic state government at all. It will be ruled directly from the capital by the government, and Indians from the rest of India will also now be free to move into the area and buy property.

I can see why they put the army in before doing so, because wow, people are gonna be angry about it.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Thanks for the history and perspective. I did not know all those details.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
So to give people a quick low-down on what the deal is: during the transition to independence of former British India, what has become Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) accepted coming under Indian rule so they could get more autonomy than they thought they would have if they'd gone to Pakistan, although a lot of the area claimed as Jammu and Kashmir, which was formerly the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, did go to Pakistan in the form of present-day Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, and to China as Aksai Chin.

The border has remained disputed between those three countries ever since. But anyway, part of the deal under which Indian J&K accepted being part of India was that there'd be a special compact between the state and the central government, not enjoyed by any other state in India.

This compact basically said that J&K could have their own flag, that people from other states of India weren't allowed to buy land and property there and (a big one!) that laws decided by the union government would only be imposed upon J+K if they were ratified by their own state legislative assembly. With the exception of those pertaining to communication, defence and foreign policy, which would be applied to them whether they liked it or not, as with every other state in India. J&K sent representatives to the union government's Parliament (Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha) like any other state in India.

Right, so that was a pretty good deal. But there were nevertheless ongoing tensions over the state throughout Indian history really, due to different separatist groups and Islamist factors, identity issues, competing claims of India and Pakistan and both of them interfering with each other and trying to take their claim, etc.

This culminated in, last year, the imposition of 'President's rule' (direct union government, temporary removal of self-government) over Jammu and Kashmir after the BJP's coalition with the regional Jammu and Kashmir People's Democratic Party (PDP) broke down, and the union government said that concerns of terrorism and so on required that they impose President's rule.

In recent days, the union government has seriously put the military in, imposed curfews and put tabs on political leaders in J&K, leading up to their putting the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, to the Rajya Sabha. And basically, it's going through.

What this Bill means is that Indian-administered J&K will be split into two (Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh) union territories. There are a few union territories in India. What this means is that it will no longer have any of the special privileges regarding union laws and exclusion of non-residents buying property, but also it will no longer have its own democratic state government at all. It will be ruled directly from the capital by the government, and Indians from the rest of India will also now be free to move into the area and buy property.

I can see why they put the army in before doing so, because wow, people are gonna be angry about it.

Very good summary. Opposition is splintered about this issue. Many in opposition to the rightist government feel that the move is bold and correct.

But there are other states in India that enjoy special status. Government should do something with those too.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Very good summary. Opposition is splintered about this issue. Many in opposition to the rightist government feel that the move is bold and correct.

But there are other states in India that enjoy special status. Government should do something with those too.

Can you point out some examples of those, atanu?
 

Kirran

Premium Member
I think Nagaland, Himachal Pradesh and another. I don’t remember the third.

I had a quick look. I can't see anything like that about HP, but Nagaland apparently has some kind of greater autonomy. I can't see what shape that takes. Also, tribes in Nagaland have quite a bit of freedom to manage their own affairs autonomously. Perhaps a little bit like Native American nations in the USA.
 

ronki23

Well-Known Member
@Aupmanyav may know about this as he was old enough to remember the independence of India but Jummu and Kashmir belongs to India. Pakistan invaded in 1947 so Jummu and Kashmir chose to go with India. I don't understand why it's one state- doesn't it make more sense to split Jummu and Kashmir into 2 as Jummu is Hindu and Kashmir is Muslim. I read that Ladakh is being separated from them so why not split it further?
 

ronki23

Well-Known Member
I've read that India is only keeping its part of Jammu and Kashmir because Jammu and Ladakh are Hindu and Buddhist respectively. If Kashmir hates India then let them go to Pakistan but make no mistake- Jummu and Ladakh belong to India
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
.. but also it will no longer have its own democratic state government at all. It will be ruled directly from the capital by the government, ..
This part of your post is not correct. A union territory also has its own democratic setup. Delhi (ruled by Aam Aadmi Party, commonly known as AAP) and Puducherry (Indian National Congress) are examples of it. They are ruled by parties which are in opposition to the Central Government, i.e., BJP. They have their own democratically elected legislatures and Chief Ministers. Supreme Court has defined the status of a Chief Minister and a Governor and the working relationship between them.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
But there are other states in India that enjoy special status. Government should do something with those too.
Everything in its own time (in the present context, when Narendra Modi thinks it is the right time), but also that special status may be necessary for some states for development. I am not totally against the idea. The least developed states should be given additional resources.
@Aupmanyav may know about this as he was old enough to remember the independence of India but Jummu and Kashmir belongs to India. Pakistan invaded in 1947 so Jummu and Kashmir chose to go with India. I don't understand why it's one state- doesn't it make more sense to split Jummu and Kashmir into 2 as Jummu is Hindu and Kashmir is Muslim. I read that Ladakh is being separated from them so why not split it further?
I was five years old when India got freedom, don't remember running through the streets waving the Tricolor at that time as I did later. Ladakh was neglected by Kashmir governments and can hope better help with the Union Territory tag. India is opposed to two nation theory based on religion that is why no further bifurcation. Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir need to learn to live together as they do in other Indian states.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I've read that India is only keeping its part of Jammu and Kashmir because Jammu and Ladakh are Hindu and Buddhist respectively. If Kashmir hates India then let them go to Pakistan but make no mistake - Jummu and Ladakh belong to India
Then why did the Kashmir king and Shiekh Abdullah sign the instrument of accession at the time they were attacked by Pakistan? They should have welcomed the Kabailies and Pakistani forces. The Kashmiris asked us to come and help, and we did not go uninvited or before the instrument of accession was signed. Now, after Pakistan not having fulfilled its obligation to withdraw its forces as per the UN resolution, and thousands of Indian soldiers having laid down their lives in protecting Kashmir, you are asking us to gift Kashmir to Pakistan?
 

Kirran

Premium Member
This part of your post is not correct. A union territory also has its own democratic setup. Delhi (ruled by Aam Aadmi Party, commonly known as AAP) and Puducherry (Indian National Congress) are examples of it. They are ruled by parties which are in opposition to the Central Government, i.e., BJP. They have their own democratically elected legislatures and Chief Ministers. Supreme Court has defined the status of a Chief Minister and a Governor and the working relationship between them.

Those are exceptions, they are partial union territories which enjoy democratic processes which no other union territories receive.

They have proposed making J and K like that too, but talk is cheap. And even if they do, it's less than they had before!
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Those are exceptions, they are partial union territories which enjoy democratic processes which no other union territories receive.
Again, you are not correct. Jammu & Kashmir will have a regular legislature and a Chief Minister, just like Delhi and Puducherry. The Election Commission of India is already aware of that. But remember, it is always possible that BJP may form the next government in J&K. They were the second largest party in the last election.
Elected (87): JKPDP (28), BJP (25), JKNC (15), INC (12), JKPC (2), CPI(M) (1), JKPDF (1), IND (3)
Others (2): Nominated (2)
Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly - Wikipedia
Election Commission discusses Jammu and Kashmir delimitation (Hindustan Times, Aug. 13, 2019)
More at: https://www.google.co.in/search?q=e...b3-obkAhVMaCsKHauhDWgQpwUIJw&biw=1600&bih=790 (that is news from the last seven days)
Kirran, ask, don't claim, if you do not know something. You know I will not resort to falsehood. I hope you have that much faith in me.
 
Last edited:

Kirran

Premium Member
Again, you are not correct. Jammu & Kashmir will have a regular legislature and a Chief Minister, just like Delhi and Puducherry. The Election Commission of India is already aware of that. But remember, it is always possible that BJP may form the next government in J&K. They were the second largest party in the last election.
Elected (87): JKPDP (28), BJP (25), JKNC (15), INC (12), JKPC (2), CPI(M) (1), JKPDF (1), IND (3)
Others (2): Nominated (2)
Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly - Wikipedia
Election Commission discusses Jammu and Kashmir delimitation (Hindustan Times, Aug. 13, 2019)
More at: https://www.google.co.in/search?q=e...b3-obkAhVMaCsKHauhDWgQpwUIJw&biw=1600&bih=790 (that is news from the last seven days)
Kirran, ask, don't claim, if you do not know something. You know I will not resort to falsehood. I hope you have that much faith in me.

Aup, chill. First off, it is incorrect to say that a union territory is necessarily a democratic body. The majority are not. There are two who have been granted what is called 'partial statehood', namely Puducherry and the National Capital Territory. The law applied to Puducherry will also be applied to J and K, apparently, although it hasn't been brought in yet and whether it comes in when promised we will see. But even if it does, it still is a downgrade from what there was before.

Ladakh will be governed by a Lieutenant Governor appointed by the President of India. Great.

Jammu and Kashmir will have a legislative assembly, in addition to a Lieutenant Governor. Still not full statehood.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
True. A union territory is not a full-fleged state but according to the Indian Constitution is perfectly a democratic entity. Modi and Shah have said that when the situation normalizes, J&K will be considered for being declared a full-fleged state. Some precautions are necessary at the moment, particularly because of infiltration of terrorists from Pakistan. As of today, school and colleges are open in Srinagar. Government offices are open. Services like water, electricity and health are fully operational. Land-based telephone services have been opened. Supreme Court will hear petitions against the removal of Articles 370 next week. Normalcy will come step by step. But Kashmir is not going to face a Hong Kong like situation.
 
Last edited:

Kirran

Premium Member
True. A union territory is not a full-fleged state. Modi and Shah have said that when the situation normalizes, J&K will be declared a full-fleged state. Some precautions are necessary at the moment, particularly because of infiltration of terrorists from Pakistan. As of today, school and colleges are open in Srinagar, government offices are open, water, electricity, health services and land-based telephone services are open. Normalcy will come step by step. Kashmir is not going to face a Hong Kong like situation.

How do you mean, a Hong Kong situation?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Protests like Tienanmen Square or elsewhere (Egypt, Russia, Venezuela, etc.) and use of excessive force to suppress opposition. There has been no firing in Kashmir since the day when Parliament removed Article 370.
Edited: BTW, there are no restrictions at all in Ladakh or Jammu region.
 
Last edited:
Top