India revokes Kashmir’s and Jammu’s special status

[lfromnj]

Bad, Bad decision. India seems to be hell bent to try what China has done in Xinjiang. The Abolition of Article 370&35A would allow for people from other parts of (hindu-majority) India to be settled in Kashmir and permanently change its demographics from Muslim to Hindu, something that was previously restricted under J&Kashmirs laws.

If you impose permanent martial law, imprison even the moderate political leaders and take away their autonomy, then that is how you create terrorists.

Uh, not really? People from say, Mumbai or anywhere else in India should have every right to settle in J&K. India is still a single country after all.

Just like Americans from California should have the right to settle in Mississippi or Germans from Saxony should have the right to settle in Hamburg for example.

Removing autonomy and cracking down is a bad idea I agree though.

A better example is Americans and American Samoa. IDGAF about your "culture" If  I got the cash to purchase land and someone wants to sell it, I should be allowed.

[lfromnj]

Yeah, my objection is less abolishing Article 370 and what they replaced it with. Directly governing Kashmir from the capital makes their intentions look far more suspect than had they turned Kashmir into just another state of India.

[lfromnj]

Very revealing look into the mindset of certain people in this thread: suddenly any attachment to liberty or individual rights or constitutional norms or federalism goes flying out the window because of AUGH MUSLIMS. I wish you guys would be honest though: rather than pretending this is just about Article 370, admit you think it is OK and proper for the government of the "world's largest democracy" to unilaterally and illegally abolish a state with no forewarning and place a population of 12.5 milllion under military rule, stripping all democratic rights from its people, preemptively detaining any potentially dissenters and cutting off all communication.

Even more revealing is the silence of the major powers. Charitably, one could assume the absence of commentary from Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, Tokyo, Beijing and Moscow is due to geopolitics (after all, the Western powers are building up India as their key military ally in the region, and the latter two still want some influence in New Delhi). More disturbingly though, the leaders of these countries are giving a silent endorsement because they think it's pretty much OK what India is doing, and if anything are studying the actions of Modi to see if they can repeat his methods domestically.

Few people are actually defending the actual actions of military rule and the complete tear down of the government. Instead people are defending the fact that Kashmir doesn't get special rights anymore.I can't find a single comment here besides maybe OSR that could be construed as defending the central military rule. Please stop straw manning this thread when there really aren't any posts defending what you describe. Insomnians comment best summarizes the defenders of this policy on this thread.

[lfromnj]

Very revealing look into the mindset of certain people in this thread: suddenly any attachment to liberty or individual rights or constitutional norms or federalism goes flying out the window because of AUGH MUSLIMS. I wish you guys would be honest though: rather than pretending this is just about Article 370, admit you think it is OK and proper for the government of the "world's largest democracy" to unilaterally and illegally abolish a state with no forewarning and place a population of 12.5 milllion under military rule, stripping all democratic rights from its people, preemptively detaining any potentially dissenters and cutting off all communication.

Im going to use a source which is not at all pro India: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/kashmir-special-status-explained-articles-370-35a-190805054643431.html

The article, which came into effect in 1949, exempts Jammu and Kashmir state from the Indian constitution.

It established a separate constitution and a separate flag and denied property rights in the region to the outsiders.

That means the residents of the state live under different laws from the rest of the country in matters such as property ownership and citizenship.

The article, referred to as the Permanent Residents Law, also bars female residents of Jammu and Kashmir from property rights in the event that they marry a person from outside the state. The provision also extends to such women's children.

This seems more like India's version of Reconstruction and just like how the Union was justified to implement the policies of reconstruction, India is justified to do this

It is not justified to completely take over control of the government however giving it less autonomy than any other region,temporarily increasing military presence to counter any insurgency tactics is fine, but actively destroying the government is not

[lfromnj]

Very revealing look into the mindset of certain people in this thread: suddenly any attachment to liberty or individual rights or constitutional norms or federalism goes flying out the window because of AUGH MUSLIMS. I wish you guys would be honest though: rather than pretending this is just about Article 370, admit you think it is OK and proper for the government of the "world's largest democracy" to unilaterally and illegally abolish a state with no forewarning and place a population of 12.5 milllion under military rule, stripping all democratic rights from its people, preemptively detaining any potentially dissenters and cutting off all communication.

Im going to use a source which is not at all pro India: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/kashmir-special-status-explained-articles-370-35a-190805054643431.html

The article, which came into effect in 1949, exempts Jammu and Kashmir state from the Indian constitution.

It established a separate constitution and a separate flag and denied property rights in the region to the outsiders.

That means the residents of the state live under different laws from the rest of the country in matters such as property ownership and citizenship.

The article, referred to as the Permanent Residents Law, also bars female residents of Jammu and Kashmir from property rights in the event that they marry a person from outside the state. The provision also extends to such women's children.

This seems more like India's version of Reconstruction and just like how the Union was justified to implement the policies of reconstruction, India is justified to do this

It is not justified to completely take over control of the government however giving it less autonomy than any other region,temporarily increasing military presence to counter any insurgency tactics is fine, but actively destroying the government is not

The South was given less autonomy during Reconstruction than the other states and this is India's version of reconstruction.

Yes coz being isolationist is completely comparable to a full scale revolt supporting slavery

[lfromnj]

Very revealing look into the mindset of certain people in this thread: suddenly any attachment to liberty or individual rights or constitutional norms or federalism goes flying out the window because of AUGH MUSLIMS. I wish you guys would be honest though: rather than pretending this is just about Article 370, admit you think it is OK and proper for the government of the "world's largest democracy" to unilaterally and illegally abolish a state with no forewarning and place a population of 12.5 milllion under military rule, stripping all democratic rights from its people, preemptively detaining any potentially dissenters and cutting off all communication.

Im going to use a source which is not at all pro India: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/kashmir-special-status-explained-articles-370-35a-190805054643431.html

The article, which came into effect in 1949, exempts Jammu and Kashmir state from the Indian constitution.

It established a separate constitution and a separate flag and denied property rights in the region to the outsiders.

That means the residents of the state live under different laws from the rest of the country in matters such as property ownership and citizenship.

The article, referred to as the Permanent Residents Law, also bars female residents of Jammu and Kashmir from property rights in the event that they marry a person from outside the state. The provision also extends to such women's children.

This seems more like India's version of Reconstruction and just like how the Union was justified to implement the policies of reconstruction, India is justified to do this

It is not justified to completely take over control of the government however giving it less autonomy than any other region,temporarily increasing military presence to counter any insurgency tactics is fine, but actively destroying the government is not

The South was given less autonomy during Reconstruction than the other states and this is India's version of reconstruction.

Yes coz being isolationist is completely comparable to a full scale revolt supporting slavery

Kashmir women law is literally a law only Radical Islamists now days would support. It is deplorable, and Kashmir has lots of problems with insurgencies and my dad said many of their leaders were sympathetic to the insurgencies.

Unlike you, I don't believe everything my parents say when it comes to India, We get it you hate China and want super tarrifs because you want India to overtake them. It is not ok to completely overthrow a democratically elected government and place it under house arrest.

[lfromnj]

Bad, Bad decision. India seems to be hell bent to try what China has done in Xinjiang. The Abolition of Article 370&35A would allow for people from other parts of (hindu-majority) India to be settled in Kashmir and permanently change its demographics from Muslim to Hindu, something that was previously restricted under J&Kashmirs laws.

If you impose permanent martial law, imprison even the moderate political leaders and take away their autonomy, then that is how you create terrorists.

Or perhaps it could be used for the Hindus expelled from Kashmir under this special status to be returned to their homelands? Quite apart from the fact that in normal countries citizens can settle wherever they like,  so India is just coming closer to international norms.
And in case, experience has shown that Muslims living in non-Muslim dominated regions are almost always better off that non-Muslims living in Muslim dominated regions, so probably would lead to improvement in the long term.

Not sure that happens in India, lynchings for Muslims are quite common . However it isn't right to forever separate a state within a country from the rest of the population. Maybe slow controlled assimilation in both directions would be ideal. It is absolutely unfair to ban any women from marrying outsiders.