This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
An image used in this article, File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC) |
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted.Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Article 370. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
" But the Article 370 clearly states that the provisions with respect to the state of Jammu and Kashmir are only temporary and not permanent ."
Having said that, the very first head "purpose" states the following "Thus the Article has become a permanent feature of the Indian constitution, as confirmed by various rulings of the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, the latest of which was in April 2018.[5][1][6][7][8]
I hope this is a bonafide mistake on some editors part because [2] this edit seems to have changed, in the name of fixing typos the entire meaning of the sentence which is not in line with the rest of the page.
I request a discussion on this so that necessary steps can be taken to fix the issue. Again, i have not made any corrections on the page, just merely pointed it out here Mhveinvp (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
References
This edit request to Article 370 of the Constitution of India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the spam links in "See also" section added by User talk:115.112.117.162 just before the article was protected and user blocked. 59.95.68.24 (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC) 59.95.68.24 (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
There will be a lot of information coming in the coming hours and days. This page should be preemptively protected from vandalism.
This edit request to Article 370 of the Constitution of India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article 370 is now history. Please change all present tense sentences into past tense as the President has approved the abrogation. Source - swarajyamag.com/insta/president-ram-nath-kovind-signs-order-abrogationg-article-370-and-applying-indian-constitution-to-jk 59.95.68.24 (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
This source written by "India Today web desk"[1] says in the byline:
Article 370, which accords special status to J&K, has been removed, Amit Shah told Rajya Sabha.
and yet in the body of the article, you find:
The government on Monday moved a resolution in the Rajya Sabha to repeal Article 370 of the Constitution which accords special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
I have no idea what Amit Shah said. But he couldn't possibly say that "it has been removed" while also asking for a resolution to "repeal" it. It is obvious that the Web Desk doesn't know its head from its tail. Any news source that the Article 370 has been "scrapped" should be obviously regarded with complete scepticism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Reverted edit. Harshil169, please read the sources above to understand the situation. And, explain here if you disagree. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
References
((cite web))
: |first3=
has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
This edit request to Article 370 of the Constitution of India. now its semi removed from 5 august 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Keshavjoshi6969 (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Article 370 of the Constitution of India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2019 actions by the Union government
However, according to Article 370, the Governor must be advised by the Council of Ministers of the State or the Constituent Assembly of the State, neither of which is operative at the time of the presidential order.[5]
In the original text of the article no where it says 'MUST' be advised by council, Its a misinterpretation , its actually a governer who generally advised by council of ministers if exists, other wise governer can directly give his consent without any ones recommendation... 59.93.240.175 (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
These special measures can be altered only on the recommendation of the Sadar-i-Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers, or by the “Constituent Assembly” of that State. As of now, there is no “Constituent Assembly”.
Please comment and give opinion regarding upcoming big change at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Kashmir pages.-Nizil (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
QEDK, I am not sure why you are changing "bill" to "resolution". Can you explain? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Yet another Presidential Order on 7 August [3]. Can somebody find the Gazette issue that announces this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Article 370 of the Constitution of India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The wiki article currently states : " But a 2002 high court ruling made it clear that a woman will remain a PR even after marriage to a non-PR, and enjoy all the rights of a PR. A People's Democratic Party (PDP) government, led by Mehbooba Mufti, passed a law to overturn the court judgment by introducing a bill styled “Permanent Residents (Disqualification) Bill, 2004’."
That is not correct. The government was led by Mufti Mohammed Syed in 2004, not his daughter Mehbooba Mufti who became CM 10-11 years later, after her father's death. 73.92.160.115 (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Saff V., this is not a proper justification. DUE WEIGHT is not settled by citing a source or two. This page is on Article 370, covering its 70 years of history. While the fact that the Kashmir Valley is under clampdown during the revocation definitely needs to be mentioned, this is excessive detail. I have referred you to the page on Indian revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status, which is specifically about the current developments. You haven't said whether you have looked at that page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.Saff V. (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, the exact quote from Noorani is:
In regard to the rest of India, if a state’s powers are to be curbed, and correspondingly those of the Union enlarged, the elaborate procedure laid down in Article 368 will have to be followed. In regard to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Nanda argued, a mere executive order made by the President under Article 370 would suffice. His successors in office accepted this interpretation of Article 370.
I think the italicised bits are important.
But even this "very simple" process requires the concurrence of the state government, which is clear from Noorani's discussion. I don't know if Nanda mentioned it or not.
Only the Supreme Court can decide whether the central government can proxy for 'state government' while the state is under President's rule. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The eradication of corruption, the restoration of normal political life enlivened by genuinely responsive representative institutions, and total integration with India were on the cards; democratization of the National Conference and a clean administration, release of political detenus including Abdullah, and the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution were the means with which he wanted to realize his broad aims.[1]
References
Ok, I like your version and thanks for clearing this up. Just noting my support in case any future editors wonder. Kautilya3: should we add a table listing these orders with the year and a cite/link to each order? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, This page was written as a staid constitutional law page, and the details you and I want to cover, viz., the history and politics of the whole idea, don't quite fit in it. Should we start a new page on Special status of Jammu and Kashmir or Autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir? There are also plenty of questions of autonomy even during the days of the princely state, right from the day of creation of the state in 1846. In some sense, the autonomy is the core issue of the Kashmir conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, I don't understand the point of replacing the current text by old text. The sources you have removed include India Today. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
They are supporting the government in this! This needs to be added.2.51.190.39 (talk) ~ —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Links to edits being discussed: 04:16, 11 August 2019, 01:54, 12 August 2019
Kautilya3: As I mentioned earlier, Abdul Noorani's book is a reliable source. However, we should not treat his analysis as anything more than one side, nor that he reflects the scholarly consensus. Jaffrelot is another scholarly side, much cited. There are more. Each side has its own perspectives/strengths/flaws, but our job is not to take a side, but present all sides. NPOV is important (I am sure we agree here, just a note for the new editors / talk page watchers). Further, we should not rely exclusively on the 1950s publications to present Sheikh Abdullah's alleged motives. If you are unable to verify something someone else or I added, just tag. We should check and embed quotes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Let me also clearly state that the repeal of Article 370 is not possible by any constitutional method. It can only be done by a constitutional coup, which even our Supreme Court will declare ultra vires and void.[1][2]
References
According to Christophe Jaffrelot – a professor of Political Science and History of India and Pakistan ..... She goes on to make similar claims, quite many times.
What we must strive here to summarize all these sides, rather than take one sideis again horribly wrong. It is one of the most-abused interpretation of NPOV, typically brandished by homeopaths in relevant articles to claim that they must be allowed ample space for their nonsensical science and all that. BJP's negationist scholarship can't be ever equated to scholars like Noorani.
@Kautilya3: The 1958 paper is old no doubt, but not obsolete/outdated as your edit comment tags it. It provides a historical peg and context, an idea of how it was understood by a scholar around the time the 1954 presidential order was issued. Sharma's (1958) publication is like some sources such as Menon (1956) that were cited in this article before my first edit. Also note that while Google Scholar discovers only 3 cites to the Sharma article, that is an error or some algo glitch. Cottrell's chapter relating to Article 370 in the recent Cambridge University Press published book cites the Sharma article, as do others (none of these show up in the google scholar cite count, for whatever reason). We should add Sharma back. Of course, for NPOV, if you can find scholarly source(s) that disputes it or provides a different perspective, we should summarize it too. That will improve this article and make it more comprehensive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: I am trying to develop a compromise approach to address the concerns you mention above, not to cherrypick. My preferred approach has been and remains to quote Sharma exactly and completely (without any 'cut'), i.e., "The President can, however, by public notification declare that Article 370 ceases to be operative from a particular date. This means that this is a temporary provision and will be withdrawn as soon as the people of the state have given their verdict on the issue of accession". An alternate approach, one I prefer more, is to provide multiple reliable sources as we include the Bodh Raj Sharma Sharma-type view. Would you accept it, or something similar, if presented with multiple sources? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
(ps) FWIW, I also believe we should include the views expressed in reliable sources from Pakistani authors. All significant sides, to respect and cherish our NPOV guidelines. We can work on that, once we agree on an approach here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, this entire section is POV, I am afraid. It looks you are using mediocre sources which are either distorting the facts or obscuring them. Fundamental rights of India do apply to J&K since the 1954 Presidential order. The Women's rights section is beating the drum about a failed Bill. It was never passed, even if it had, it would have been violative of equal rights and would have been struck down. All this stuff has really to do with the permanent residents' privileges, which is better put into the Article 35A page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with @Kautilya3: that this entire section—its appearance on this page, after the revocation of the page's subject—has the strong flavor of POV. It consequently needs to be removed in its entirety. Given that the topic area is contentious, and subject to discretionary sanctions, I would suggest that it be removed now, and consensus first gained for its addition, and wording of said addition, on the talk page. Otherwise, it puts an unfair burden on editors such as Kautilya3 who regularly maintain Kashmir-related pages. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The bench, in the landmark judgement on 7 October 2002, held by a majority view that the daughter of a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir will not lose her status as a permanent resident upon her marriage to a person from outside the state.[1]
Your content says the exact opposite. Is this another BJP propaganda source you are using? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
References
The petition filed by Syama Prasad Mookerjee in the Srinagar High Court shortly before his death:[1]
2. That the detenu was arrested by the police on 11.5.53 at Lakhimpur purporting to act under section 3(1) of the Public Security Act 2003, under an order by respondent no. 1.
12. That the detenu is a citizen of India and his fundamental right of freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 19(d) has been so guaranteed to him as a citizen of India.
No doubt, Mookerjee was making a point of the fact that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India didn't apply to Jammu and Kashmir by virtue of Article 370.[2] The party he has founded has now detained thousands and thousands of people, apparently to give them exactly these same "fundamental rights" (under the so-called "Public Safety Act", which has replaced the "Public Security Act"). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
References
I have reverted 4 opinions of Harish Salve inserted often out of context. There are about a dozen petitions in the Supreme Court and probably ten dozen constitutional experts in India who can voice opinions. We won't be able to decide what to include and what not to include. We will just wait for the Supreme Court to decide. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
ZuhaSarai, thank you for your contribution. Even though Bbb23 reverted because it is incoherent, I decided to read it anyway. But I found it curious that you cited a Russian source with the title "ДИНАМИКА АЛЬФА-АКТИВНОСТИ ОБРАЗЦА 239PU
В РАЗЛИЧНЫХ ШКАЛАХ ВРЕМЕНИ
", which Google translates as
"DYNAMICS OF 239PU SAMPLE ALPHA ACTIVITY AT DIFFERENT SCALES OF TIME"
Can you explain why you cited this source? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, For some reason that source added. It was not intentional. It may have been mistranslated when citing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuhaSarai (talk • contribs) 22:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Also as a follow up, the only sources I attached were as follows (I repeated the ones I cited more than once):
Hasan, Zubeida (1963). "INDIA IN KASHMIR". Pakistan Horizon. 16 (1): 47–60. ISSN 0030-980X. Punjabi, Riyaz (2011-02-08). "Autonomy in Jammu and Kashmir". Strategic Analysis. 35 (2): 308–311. doi:10.1080/09700161.2011.542929. ISSN 0970-0161. Punjabi, Riyaz (2011-02-08). "Autonomy in Jammu and Kashmir". Strategic Analysis. 35 (2): 308–311. doi:10.1080/09700161.2011.542929. ISSN 0970-0161. PEER, GAZALA; RAHMAN, JAVEDUR (2012). "An Unpleasant Autonomy: Revisiting the Special Status for Jammu and Kashmir". Economic and Political Weekly. 47 (23): 72–75. ISSN 0012-9976. Chowdhary, Rekha (2000). "Autonomy Demand: Kashmir at Crossroads". Economic and Political Weekly. 35 (30): 2599–2603. ISSN 0012-9976. Chowdhary, Rekha (2000). "Autonomy Demand: Kashmir at Crossroads". Economic and Political Weekly. 35 (30): 2599–2603. ISSN 0012-9976. Punjabi, Riyaz (2011-02-08). "Autonomy in Jammu and Kashmir". Strategic Analysis. 35 (2): 308–311. doi:10.1080/09700161.2011.542929. ISSN 0970-0161. Sofi, Waseem Ahmad; Khan, Arshi (2017-11-25), "Federalism: An Idea Behind the Success of Indian Democracy", India Studies in Business and Economics, Springer Singapore, pp. 159–169, ISBN 978-981-10-6216-2, retrieved 2019-12-08 Chowdhary, Rekha (2000). "Autonomy Demand: Kashmir at Crossroads". Economic and Political Weekly. 35 (30): 2599–2603. ISSN 0012-9976. Puri, Balraj (1990). "The Challenge of Kashmir". Economic and Political Weekly. 25 (4): 191–192. ISSN 0012-9976. Hasan, Zubeida (1963). "INDIA IN KASHMIR". Pakistan Horizon. 16 (1): 47–60. ISSN 0030-980X. Punjabi, Riyaz (2011-02-08). "Autonomy in Jammu and Kashmir". Strategic Analysis. 35 (2): 308–311. doi:10.1080/09700161.2011.542929. ISSN 0970-0161. Punjabi, Riyaz (2011-02-08). "Autonomy in Jammu and Kashmir". Strategic Analysis. 35 (2): 308–311. doi:10.1080/09700161.2011.542929. ISSN 0970-0161. PEER, GAZALA; RAHMAN, JAVEDUR (2012). "An Unpleasant Autonomy: Revisiting the Special Status for Jammu and Kashmir". Economic and Political Weekly. 47 (23): 72–75. ISSN 0012-9976. Chowdhary, Rekha (2000). "Autonomy Demand: Kashmir at Crossroads". Economic and Political Weekly. 35 (30): 2599–2603. ISSN 0012-9976. Chowdhary, Rekha (2000). "Autonomy Demand: Kashmir at Crossroads". Economic and Political Weekly. 35 (30): 2599–2603. ISSN 0012-9976. Punjabi, Riyaz (2011-02-08). "Autonomy in Jammu and Kashmir". Strategic Analysis. 35 (2): 308–311. doi:10.1080/09700161.2011.542929. ISSN 0970-0161. Sofi, Waseem Ahmad; Khan, Arshi (2017-11-25), "Federalism: An Idea Behind the Success of Indian Democracy", India Studies in Business and Economics, Springer Singapore, pp. 159–169, ISBN 978-981-10-6216-2, retrieved 2019-12-08 Chowdhary, Rekha (2000). "Autonomy Demand: Kashmir at Crossroads". Economic and Political Weekly. 35 (30): 2599–2603. ISSN 0012-9976. Puri, Balraj (1990). "The Challenge of Kashmir". Economic and Political Weekly. 25 (4): 191–192. ISSN 0012-9976. Gani, Iqbal. M (2000). "Gani, M. Iqbal. THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT ASSEMBLY DEBATES ON AUTONOMY REPORT (English Version) (OFFICIAL REPORT). 2000". Gani, Iqbal M. (2000). "Gani, Iqbal. M (2000). "Gani, M. Iqbal. THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT ASSEMBLY DEBATES ON AUTONOMY REPORT (English Version) (OFFICIAL REPORT). 2000". Chowdhary, Rekha (2000). "Autonomy Demand: Kashmir at Crossroads". Economic and Political Weekly. 35 (30): 2599–2603. ISSN 0012-9976. Chowdhary, Rekha (2000). "Autonomy Demand: Kashmir at Crossroads". Economic and Political Weekly. 35 (30): 2599–2603. ISSN 0012-9976.
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuhaSarai (talk • contribs)
@ZuhaSarai: Any plan to restore that content? On face of it, it looks important.— Vaibhavafro 💬 07:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
We should edit Applicability of the Indian law to Jammu and Kashmir because after the 5th of August 2019 the whole law of India is applicable to Jammu and Kashmir and not just some laws as mentioned there or which should mention things over there in past tense (Eg - Applicability of the Indian law to Jammu and Kashmir before the revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir/before 5th of August 2019) Arjunuws (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, I have reverted the following section added by you:
International law Elements of the international legal regime, the differing interpretations and the "narrowly applied legal arguments favorable to one side's interests" have fueled the historic disputes related to Kashmir, according to Brian Farrell – a scholar of International Law and Human Rights.[1] Among other constitutional provisions, the "Article 370 limited the authority of the Indian National Parliament to pass legislation for the State of Jammu and Kashmir, granting some degree of autonomy to the state", states Farrell.[2] Since mid-1954, this autonomy was slowly abrogated and the powers of Indian president and central government were drastically increased.[3]
According to Farrell, the applicability of the international law on Kashmiri autonomy must be considered under its doctrine of inter-temporal law. This doctrine requires that the "situation in question must be analyzed in light of the rules of international law as they existed at the time". The self-determination related norms of international law developed fully over the 1960s, were adopted in 1970, and these did not apply to Kashmir as binding law at the time of the partition in 1947.[4] Further, the upheavals and changing demographics since 1947 in the disputed Kashmir region raise the difficult question as to who should rightfully exercise the right to self-determination.[5] According to Sumathi Subbiah, the United Nations Security Council lacks the capacity to adjudicate these disputes in international law terms and has dealt with the dispute in political terms.[6]
References
- ^ Brian Farrell 2003, pp. 306–307, Quote: "It is unfair - and perhaps simplistic - to say that it is the failure of the international legal regime that has prevented resolution of the Kashmir dispute. It has, however, provided fuel for the continued dispute. By narrowly applying legal arguments favorable to its own interests, either country can defend its own position with some validity. The scholarly literature on the subject is illustrative, as is typical in a conflict situation, law, history, and politics can all be plausibly interpreted (or manipulated, in the eyes of the opposing viewpoint) to demonstrate the legitimacy of one viewpoint or the other.".
- ^ Brian Farrell 2003, p. 301.
- ^ Brian Farrell 2003, p. 302.
- ^ Brian Farrell 2003, pp. 309–310.
- ^ Brian Farrell 2003, pp. 314–315, also see footnote 21 on page 297.
- ^ Sumathi Subbiah 2004, pp. 181–182.
The first paragraph is devoid of any content really. What content there is, is a repetition of what has already been said. The second paragraph is about "self-determination", which is not under discussion here.
What matters is whether the Indian government has the ability to unilaterally assume powers which were not granted to it in the Instrument of Accession. That issue certainly won't be found in articles published in 2003/2004. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The Sumati Subbiah point is also not convincing. The Security Council could certainly have obtained a legal opinion from the International Court of Justice, which it didn't do. Please see the UN Security Council Resolution 47 page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
But the revised text of the article says-"All provisions of this Constitution, as amended from time to time, without any modifications or exceptions, shall apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir notwithstanding anything contrary contained in article 152 or article 308 or any other article of this Constitution or any other provision of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir or any law, document, judgement, ordinance, order, by-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having the force of law in the territory of India, or any other instrument, treaty or agreement as envisaged under article 363 or otherwise." So the whole of India is applicable to Jammu and Kashmir. Arjunuws (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I haven't yet found any RS commenting on the Presidential order:
But it basically says that the entire Indian constitution has been made applicable to J&K by Presidential fiat. It also claims that he has obtained the "concurrence" of the State Government (by which it presumably means the Governor who himself reports to the President).
But I have no idea how the President can get around the Explanation clause:
For the purpose of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognized by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadr-i-Riyasat (now Governor) of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office.
There is no Council of Ministers operating in J&K. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this claim of "concurrence" of state govt is dubious. This Hindu nationalist @Kautilya3 is making dubious claims. There was no Govt in place Jammu and Kashmir. Hence this claim needs to be contested and removed. I had removed it. Please don't delete this change. Kashwritesback (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Kashwritesback, I am afraid this edit is not per Wikipedia policy. You removed a newsreport, which is a reliable source as per WP:NEWSORG, and inserted an opinion column, which is a WP:PRIMARY source. You cannot replace secondary sources by primary sources. Secondly, when contentious issues are involved, you always need to discuss it and obtain WP:CONSENSUS. You also need to maintain WP:STATUSQUO until CONSENSUS is obtained. If you continue WP:Edit warring, I am afraid you will face sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
As it can be issued only with the Jammu and Kashmir government’s concurrence, the notification uses the words “with the concurrence of the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. This presumably means the Governor, who is now administering the State under President’s Rule, has given his concurrence on behalf of the State government.
So how you claimed the order is valid procedure by taking "concurrence" of Govt of state. There was no govt in place. Is that difficult for you to understand? Kashwritesback (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
No the Governor can't replace the Constituent committee. It was through presidential order 2019 that constituent committee can be replaced by "Governor", again which is under legal debate of its validity. The order can't refer itself to be a valid legal claim. Kashwritesback (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Swtadi143, two problems with your reworing of the lead sentence. It is grammatically wrong because an article in a constitution is by itself not any kind of status. It documents the status, but it is not a status in itself. It is factually wrong because nobody "gave" this status to Jammu and Kashmir. It already had it. As per the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir), the national government of India only had powers on three subjects, not the rest.
You should not be messing with the lead sentence of an article on a highly contentious subject without achieving WP:CONSENSUS. Trying to reinstate your edit based on "personal preference", as you call it, is quite out of order. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Dontel Devone Coleman, (born September 16, 2002), known professionally as Young Deezy, is an American rapper, singer, and songwriter. Between 2015 and 2017, Coleman New Orleans, Louisiana Rapper Artist Young released 5 singles 1 album, and steadily garnered a cult following through his work. In late 2020, Coleman Drops an album “Declare War”. Young Deezg Gang (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Benifiets Disadvantages 106.195.98.131 (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ZuhaSarai. Peer reviewers: Na.annamalai.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Article 370 of the Constitution of India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
182.182.104.246 (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Kashmir was made official part of India after scrapping of article 370 in 1956.
Google 202.168.145.158 (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Article 370in Jammu and Kashmir 2401:4900:41C9:9646:B977:CD32:CF3:F94E (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)