Abrogation of Article 370: My objective take!

Objectivity is the hardest thing to pursue in polarizing decisions like that of 370 abrogation. Both supporters and people opposing seems to get carried away and might have been guilty of that myself. Anyway, Here are the ten most important things I could see in this move. 

• 370 abrogation was long time due. It was supposed to be a temporary measure when it was made. It limited development in J&K but not as much as people project. J&K is far ahead of most Hindi belt states in development indicators. The main purpose of abrogation should rightly be seen as a special law like this being applicable to one state being unfair to others. It won't be a Messiah for J&K development as claimed.

• Most importantly 370 limited reach of important decisions like abolition of homosexuality and empowering of Panchayats in J&K, giving unnecessary powers to State administration. It also reduced checks and balances on the State authority. Probably the biggest benefit goes to Ladakh, which rightly deserves to be a Union Territory of its own due to its distinct character. 

• However, this is not the only exclusionary provision in India. While no other State has a full article for special status, Article 371 gives special provisions to 10 states and limits property owning in some cases, most significantly Nagaland. If one needs to believe that it is to make one India and India for all, These must also go, else the perception will be that BJP wants to interfere in the only Muslim majority state in India.

• Manner of removing 370 may be constitutional as claimed by some constitutional experts but it is completely undemocratic. BJP may not had surpassed the Constitution or Parliament and delivered what was in their manifesto. And since J&K was under President's rule, bifurcation may be is legal. However, being democratic is not just in legality but also in principle.

• There was no consultation of J&K representatives for this decision, not even an attempt. People who say consult Kashmiri people, that doesn't happen- consultations happen with elected representatives not with all people. But these representatives were put under arrest. On top of that, voices of protest have been silenced through curfew, limiting networks and arrests of influential people. This shows fear on part of government that the state will not be ready for this decision and so we must curb all voices of dissent. If the state is not ready for the decision, a democratic leader should and will build consensus first.

• There will be no doomsday if a nation follows undemocratic procedures like these. Most powerful democracies choose to be undemocratic when it suits them. China operates daily like this. India was undemocratic by the imposition of Emergency in the past. However, it sets a dangerous precedent as Pratap Bhanu Mehta mentions in his article and leads to majoritarianism which is not good for inclusive character of a nation and hits the minorities most( hardly any Muslim, commoner or famous, has openly supported the decision and that should be a signal). Weakening institutions lead to demise in the long run. Sadly the long run is too abstract for public to see. Hence, you need responsible not populist leaders.

• No, this will not be a genocide or lakhs of civilian casualties. That is fear mongering by Pakistan. Indian State and army are way more responsible compared to oppressive regimes of the world. But some lives will be lost. Small cases of rioting, stone pelting and firing have been reported in pockets. If you are a pragmatist, you will accept it as inevitable. If you are a humanist, you will speak out. 

• Citizen voice matters in a democracy as it shows what people feel, away from logic and rationality. Alarmingly only Hindu voice and voice of non residents of J&K has been heard so far. This is a dangerous tactic because with Kashmiri voice curbed, Hindu sentiment will become the popular sentiment and when Kashmiris speak out in protest, they will be branded anti-national, further fueling the divide. Yes, a lot of Jammu Hindus seem in favor of this but then Kashmir is a Muslim majority state and that voice cannot be overruled.

• From the Kashmiris I know, no one agrees with this decision, but more alarmingly as Shah Faesal said they see this as "the biggest betrayal by the Indian state!" Militancy increased in Kashmir after the Congress government rigged election in 1987 and terrorism spread as a result. Kashmiris view attacks on autonomy as attacks on self due to a fierce need for self determination. Once communication is restored, the Indian state will have to do something miraculous to bring Kashmiri trust back.

• Though, International diplomacy is not my cup of tea, My common sense tells me that this move is consistent with the Government's approach. The Indian government has started following a policy of escalation through action over de escalation through talks. The advantage is that it sends a strong message to rogue states like Pakistan and creates a strong image of a capable State internationally. The disadvantage of escalation is that in an unstable environment like South Asia, with Pakistan also being a nuclear State, you never know when it might spiral into disaster. Only time will tell what happens on this front

In conclusion, Abrogation of Article 370, isn't necessary a bad move but the way in which it was done definitely is. Unwarranted precedents are set for people to be coming to power in future to follow. I know very less can be done now except to hope only the best in us and our system prevail.