Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Bill seeks to reserve seats for Gilgit, PoK residents

Discussion in 'Defence Analysis' started by PARIKRAMA, Apr 17, 2017.

?

Should the Bill seeking to reserve 5 seats for Gilgit and POK be passed in the parliament?

  1. Yes

    91.7%
  2. No

    8.3%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Bregs

    Bregs Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    723
    Country Flag:
    India
    Good decision in fact welcome decision but situation in kashmir too needs to be handled on priority not alone at law n order level but also at political level
     
    PARIKRAMA and Hellfire like this.
  2. Joe Shearer

    Joe Shearer VETERAN MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    819
    First, it is difficult to understand what you mean by dilutions in Article 370. Article 370 has never been amended, so where is the question of dilution? The effects of Article 370, the prescribed procedure under Article 370 have been evaded; that in no way reduces the scope of Article 370 in the slightest manner. So perhaps you need to go back and look up Article 370 once more.

    Second, coming to your age-old trope, there is no prosecution in this forum, as far as I know, for aiding and abetting a suicide. If a member wishes to put forth a fatuous thought that is adopted as a general principle by a notorious set of political adherents, that is by his or her own volition. Our pointing it out subsequently in no way helps the member to explain why he dug a well for himself and then jumped into it. Our saying that wells are deep, that wells are sometimes watery, and that jumping into those may lead to evil and life-threatening consequences in no way makes us responsible for the consequences.

    In this case, the position taken is typical of a segment. So...."if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck"..... it is a duck.
     
    SrNair, The Lockean and Hellfire like this.
  3. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,036
    Likes Received:
    4,941
    Country Flag:
    India

    That was always the only domain of conflict resolution. But I believe that situation is long done with.
     
    PARIKRAMA likes this.
  4. nair

    nair Die hard Romeo Staff Member ADMINISTRATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,147
    Likes Received:
    2,266
    Country Flag:
    India
    That logic doesn't work in this case....This is from a different territory..... not like dividing seats
     
  5. Joe Shearer

    Joe Shearer VETERAN MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    819
    I have been reading your posts with great pleasure; vintage @Hellfire.

    Coming to your point on Article 370, it was not part of a treaty. It was part of a constitutional structure interlocking with the over-arching Indian constitution. The following points apply to any desire to change it, drop it or substitute for it:
    1. The J&K Constitution shut down the Constituent Assembly; it did not adjourn it sine die, the normal convention. The J&K Constituent Assembly, as called together by the sovereign, the Maharaja of Kashmir, can no longer be constituted. It is moot whether it can be reconstituted by the successor sovereign authority, the Republic of India, and it is highly doubtful if such an Assembly were to be willing to play ball. It is more likely to sit down and work out a document declaring themselves free and independent.
    2. Article 370 was a creation of the Indian Constituent Assembly. It allowed for the rescinding of Article 370 by the J&K Constituent Assembly informing the Indian Constituent Assembly that its work was over, and the Indian Constituent Assembly might proceed to hone the interfacing and interlocking of the two documents. The J&K Constituent Assembly never told the Indian Constituent Assembly, or its successor, that it had finished and that they should go ahead and remove Article 370. It no longer exists to do so, and it cannot be re-created.
    3. So much for the Vetal. Article 370 was never an element of acceptance of the Accession of J&K to the Union of India. It was a stop-gap measure to ensure that no contradictory steps should be taken by the Government of India that would contradict the final Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. So there is nothing in it that is connected to the present troubles. It merely provided for the channeling of legislation in a safe and affirmative way. And it was a one-way provision by the Indian Constituent Assembly. There was no element of treaty or mutual agreement about it. The rebellious behaviour of the people in no way affects the provision; as mentioned, it was a safeguard against the Indian House legislating a contradictory procedure to apply to the state in question.
     
  6. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,036
    Likes Received:
    4,941
    Country Flag:
    India
    That is why it will be a bit of symbolism. Technically seats will be created, but no representative. Even if a proxy presence is created, it shall have no locus standii.

    That is impossible. And if someone was foolhardy to come, (s)he will be accused of Blasphemy and lynched as soon as back in Pakistan.

    The last can be done as an irritant to Pakistanis. But of no real use, and plenty of potential misuse.

    Now, I know those questions are rhetorical :)

    Our stand on Chinese project is very clear. What is intriguing is the Pakistani stand.


    This is a PR exercise. There is already a resolution of Parliament existing over the subject. Nothing can be done against it. The public posturing by Modi govt is exactly according to it.

    All governed by relevant resolutions passed before we were born. The question is, whether India wants to be pragmatic, or uphold it's own moralistic standing and legal position over the erstwhile territories of Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir.
     
    Joe Shearer and PARIKRAMA like this.
  7. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,036
    Likes Received:
    4,941
    Country Flag:
    India

    Now since we have established that Article 370 was a creation of Government of India, of it's own free volition, my query to those who support the abrogation of this Article, what would you say, would be the effect on India as an Union, if the Government of India unilaterally decided to amend statuettes and provisions as enunciated by Government of India itself, thereby creating a situation wherein the policies, laws and statuettes that give the State it's character and it's form, are transitory?

    What would be the effect on the nation, the people and the political and territorial integrity of the nation itself?

    @IndiranChandiran
     
    Joe Shearer likes this.
  8. IndiranChandiran

    IndiranChandiran Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2017
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    795
    Country Flag:
    India
    Amusing .There is this Irish chap accusing me of being an Islamist and another one here going through great pains to show off his command over the English language to insinuate I'm with the Sangh .

    I guess pigeonholing people is a pre text to understanding their views and framing ones answers accordingly or damning them .

    Keep up the good work .
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2017
    Sam_ likes this.
  9. IndiranChandiran

    IndiranChandiran Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2017
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    795
    Country Flag:
    India
    First of all we need to examine how many such special articles were required to oversee the amalgamation of the states into the Union of India .As far as my knowledge goes , it's only pertaining to the State of J&K.

    To go back to one of your earlier posts where you raised the Naga question , I'm not aware of the contents of the accord having been made public .

    I think therein lies your answer .If I've got the essence of your post right.
     
    Sam_, Hellfire and The Lockean like this.
  10. Himanshu Pandey

    Himanshu Pandey Don't get mad, get even. STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10,209
    Likes Received:
    4,216
    Country Flag:
    India
    the question is why are we doing it.. this is done to prevent to use of GB to stop the growth of India in International area and to be used against pakistan when needed.. and we all know precedence is almost as much important and equal to law..

    this bill has not been putted on table to get passed... it is more a combination of phy ops and precedence.. to use in diplomacy and setting a tune to kashmir issue in international arena.. and there is a chance that this is a tool to retaliate in case pakistan goes with annexing GB.

    there had been a bill too in past to declare the pakistan as a terrorist state.

    if I am not wrong the change of all seats in assembly and in Parliament can't be done before 2027... we are conducting elections on the basis of seats allotted on the basis of 1971 census.

    and on the question of how we are going to elect people on those seats and all.. we are not going to do so.. those will be symbolic and empty to remind all that this part of India is occupied by an aggressor.

    now this bill will be removed without a positive conclusion because right now it is not beneficial... but it will create a precedence and it will strengthen the claim of India on this area..

    we can use it as a chip in all financial and diplomatic relations with almost all nations regarding getting what we need.. if they had their interest in GB from pakistani or chinise side..

    the picture is too big and I have little words to explain it as I understand it... but it will be suffice to say.. that this bill with the bill to declare pakistan as a terrorist state are the blocks which are getting added be used as we need in our diplomatic power and if there comes a chance to annex the GB and POK then using as a just cause.
     
  11. Himanshu Pandey

    Himanshu Pandey Don't get mad, get even. STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10,209
    Likes Received:
    4,216
    Country Flag:
    India
    you are almost correct in all this.. but the constitution assembly can be re created.. yes a tough process and can finish the work of the privious counstitution assembly in the name of changing or need to rewrite the constitution of J & K. no they can't declare the freedom as the annexation was signed by Maharaja hari singh and rectified by JK constitution assembly and Indian constitution doesn't give power to anyone to seperate...


    On 15 February 1954 the assembly members who were present cast a unanimous vote ratifying the state's accession to India. Constitution was drafted which came into force on 26 January 1957. Part II, section (3) of the constitution states 'The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India'.In 1956 the Constituent Assembly finalized its constitution, which declared the whole of the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir to be 'an integral part of the Union of India'. Elections were held the next year for a Legislative Assembly. This section cannot be legally amended as per provisions of Part XII of the constitution.
     
  12. lca-fan

    lca-fan Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,375
    Likes Received:
    4,766
    Country Flag:
    India
    That was before and during the course of independence and while it was being negotiated with Britain but after independence and signing of Kashmir accession into India by maharaja Hari Singh in lieu of military help against Pakistan I kabayali Army he wanted whole of Kashmir to be part of India and therefore was against Nehru going to UN as Indian army was comfortably taking over the Kashmiri land.
     
    Sam_ and Hellfire like this.
  13. Joe Shearer

    Joe Shearer VETERAN MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    819
    Actually, this has already been dealt with in the Keshavanandan Bharathi case (His Holiness Keshavanandan Bharathi Shripadagalvaru and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Anr.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesavananda_Bharati_v._State_of_Kerala

    Before going into further detail, I'd like you to skim through it. I'm back on the 20th.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2017
    Hellfire likes this.
  14. Joe Shearer

    Joe Shearer VETERAN MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    819
    See? Somebody thinks I have some command over the English language!

    Eat your heart out, you losers.
     
  15. Joe Shearer

    Joe Shearer VETERAN MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    819
    Actually you are almost correct in your phrasing; I happen to be absolutely correct in all this. :azn:

    Here's why.

    1. The constituent assembly of J&K state created by the sovereign, Maharaja Hari Singh, CANNOT be re-created. What it could do, did do and did not do cannot be replicated.
    2. It can make new rules. It cannot deal with, for instance, the self-dissolution of the previous constituent assembly without informing the Indian constituent assembly that it had finished its work. They would need a time-machine to do that.
    3. About separation: the accession (not annexation - your English is horrible) was signed by Maharaja Hari Singh. It was not total accession, but partial; it included ONLY defence, foreign affairs and communications. The rest of the powers of a sovereign state were retained by the Maharaja. It devolved on the state of Jammu and Kashmir when that state constitution was promulgated by the Maharaja, except to the extent that it itself allowed the Union of India certain powers and authority. NONE of what it had not surrendered is within the sovereignty of the Union. That is the talismanic value of Article 370. Please try to understand this: it is a critical point.
    4. You are right that the Indian constitution does not permit any entity to secede. Practicality dictates otherwise. Think about it and identify where in practical terms the Indian constitution water-tight wording has been flouted in the interests of practical politics.
    Hope you react well to your leg being pulled mercilessly. :achmed:
     

Share This Page