Article 370 and the plight of Kashmiri Hindus

Bravo! Shantanu.
Bravo for having brought to the fore the biggest and the most under reported episode of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

SB, Thank you for getting this into the public. I think we need to attach the first problem…the problem of getting these folks a decent place to live and have 2 meals a day. Why don’t we start a movement where we can donate whatever possible and start providing basic amenities to these folks? If there is anyone whoz already doing this, please let me know and I will be happy to donate whatever I can and I can try and mobilize some funds. Its a pity that we are guests in our own home.

Article 370 exists in the Constitution not because J&K is a Muslim-majority state(indeed J&K is a fascinating composite with Kashmir having a Muslim majority,Jammu a Hindu majority and Ladakh a Buddhist majority-to all of whom Article 370 applies equally).Article 370 exists because,even after so many years after its accession to the Indian Union, in uniquely exceptional circumstances ,close to one-third of the geographic area of the state continues to be under the illegal occupation of Pakistan.Moreover,the “temporary,transitional and special “nature of Article 370 can’t be terminated until the temporary and transitional aggression of Pakistan in J&K is overcome.Above all, article 370 is not a symbol of “minorityism” as the BJP pretends. Communalists often accuse that J&K has been singled out for “appeasement” a.k.a. Tushtikaran, which is an absolute lie.

Article 370 means as follows:
The part of your body is infected, however deadly it is, but cannot be treated; it need to heal by itself.

||namO Bhaartam, namO Sanskritam||

From Article 370 conundrum, The Statesman, 04 Jun 2014 by SAM RAJAPPA:
…Kashmir is strategically important to India because every land invasion of the country has come from its north-west frontier. The accession of Jammu and Kashmir took place under peculiar circumstances. A war was going on within the State and a ceasefire was agreed upon. Part of the State was still held by Pakistani forces. Under the circumstances, Nehru wanted his Law Minister B R Ambedkar to draft an Article with special provisions for J & K because of the circumstances under which the accession took place. Ambedkar was not convinced. Hence the task was entrusted to his deputy, Gopalaswami Ayyangar, who had been the Prime Minister of J & K under Maharaja Hari Singh for more than six years.
…
All the provisions of the Article were temporary in nature with a special provision (Section 3) that the President might issue an order to end its operation. The Article was adopted by the Constituent Assembly without much discussion because Nehru wanted it. Under the Constitution adopted in 1949, States in the Indian Union were classified under Part A, B, C and D. Jammu and Kashmir was placed under Part B States. Article 238 of the Constitution, which dealt with the administration of States in Part B of the First Schedule, was deleted in the wake of the reorganisation of States in 1956. Of the Articles 369 to 392 specified as “temporary, transitional and special provisions,” under Part XXI of the Constitution, 379 to 391 had been deleted by the Seventh Amendment in 1956. Article 371 (A to I) on nine other States are under “special provisions.”
…
The contention of Omar Abdullah, Chief Minister of J & K, that Article 370 cannot be deleted because the State does not have its Constituent Assembly any more is not correct. It is true that Section 3 of the Article has a clause that the recommendation of the State Constituent Assembly “shall be necessary” before the President issues a notification declaring that Article 370 “shall cease to be operative.” Section 167 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution framed by the State’s Constituent Assembly says that the State government cannot amend Section 3 of its Constitution and recognises the authority of Indian Parliament to legislate on matters and that the State “is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.” And Article 368 of the Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to make any changes in it in accordance with procedure laid down in this article. Of course, this would be subject to judicial review on the issue of whether the basic structure of the Constitution has been changed.