Dec 11, 2023 at 3:14 PM EST
Pakistan Furious
Pakistan's Caretaker Foreign Minister, Jalil Abbas Jilani, expressed outright rejection of the decision. During a press conference in Islamabad, Jilani said, "India has not fulfilled its international obligations," reaffirming Pakistan's support for the Kashmiri right to self-determination.
A ministry statement said "Jammu and Kashmir is an internationally recognized dispute, which remains on the agenda of the UN Security Council for over seven decades." The ministry accused India of flouting international law and UN resolutions, labelling the court's decision as "a travesty of justice."
Further raising the rhetoric after the court's decision, India's Union Home Minister Amit Shah reaffirmed in parliament the country's claim to the part of the region held by Pakistan and set parliamentary seats would be set aside for what India refers to as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
There are currently no formal talks between India and Pakistan, with relations having worsened after the decision on Jammu and Kashmir in 2019.
Sign up for Newsweek’s daily headlines
Although the last major war between India and Pakistan was in 1999, the so-called Line of Control remains tense, with sporadic episodes of shelling. India has also accused Pakistan of allowing insurgents to infiltrate.
While both countries have nuclear weapons, India's economy is more than 10 times as big as Pakistan's and is growing faster. India has now overtaken China as the world's most populous country and has more than six times as many people.
Violence Falls
In addition to its legal arguments for changing the region's status, India points to a reduction in violence in Jammu and Kashmir since the 2019 decision as well as infrastructure development. Investment in the region has surged, though historic divisions are far from resolved.
The Supreme Court said Article 370 had been a transient provision and that the Indian president's authority remained intact —with profound implications for the legal and constitutional landscape of the region.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, while delivering the judgement observed, "We have held all provisions of the Constitution of India can be applied to Jammu and Kashmir and non-application of mind cannot be claimed." He also stated, "We hold that president seeking concurrence of the union and not the state is not invalid. Thus, all provisions of the constitution can be applied to the J&K."
By Danish Manzoor
Asia Editor at Large
NEWSWEEK
The Indian Supreme Court's ruling to allow the end of the special status for the flashpoint region of Jammu and Kashmir has stoked tensions afresh with neighbour and nuclear-armed rival Pakistan.
While Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi applauded the measure as historic, Pakistan vehemently opposed it, citing international law and UN resolutions. The countries have fought three major wars over Kashmir since partition at independence in 1947, with both states holding part of the region and claiming all of it. China also has claims in Jammu and Kashmir, where a majority of the residents are Muslims.
In a watershed ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court of India affirmed the annulment of Article 370, legitimizing a 2019 Parliamentary resolution that removed the special status that Jammu and Kashmir had held since 1947. That led to its reorganization into two territories — one Jammu and Kashmir, the other Ladakh.
Modi called the Supreme Court ruling a "resounding declaration of hope, progress, and unity for our sisters and brothers in Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh."
The Indian ruling party BJP's Foreign Affairs Chief Vijay Chauthaiwale told Newsweek: " For India, Jammu and Kashmir is an integral and indivisible part of Union of India... Pakistan has no locus standi in this matter. Tomorrow Pakistan may comment on validity of election of [the] US President. But it's meaningless."
Asia Editor at Large
NEWSWEEK
The Indian Supreme Court's ruling to allow the end of the special status for the flashpoint region of Jammu and Kashmir has stoked tensions afresh with neighbour and nuclear-armed rival Pakistan.
While Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi applauded the measure as historic, Pakistan vehemently opposed it, citing international law and UN resolutions. The countries have fought three major wars over Kashmir since partition at independence in 1947, with both states holding part of the region and claiming all of it. China also has claims in Jammu and Kashmir, where a majority of the residents are Muslims.
In a watershed ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court of India affirmed the annulment of Article 370, legitimizing a 2019 Parliamentary resolution that removed the special status that Jammu and Kashmir had held since 1947. That led to its reorganization into two territories — one Jammu and Kashmir, the other Ladakh.
Modi called the Supreme Court ruling a "resounding declaration of hope, progress, and unity for our sisters and brothers in Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh."
The Indian ruling party BJP's Foreign Affairs Chief Vijay Chauthaiwale told Newsweek: " For India, Jammu and Kashmir is an integral and indivisible part of Union of India... Pakistan has no locus standi in this matter. Tomorrow Pakistan may comment on validity of election of [the] US President. But it's meaningless."
Pakistan Furious
Pakistan's Caretaker Foreign Minister, Jalil Abbas Jilani, expressed outright rejection of the decision. During a press conference in Islamabad, Jilani said, "India has not fulfilled its international obligations," reaffirming Pakistan's support for the Kashmiri right to self-determination.
A ministry statement said "Jammu and Kashmir is an internationally recognized dispute, which remains on the agenda of the UN Security Council for over seven decades." The ministry accused India of flouting international law and UN resolutions, labelling the court's decision as "a travesty of justice."
Further raising the rhetoric after the court's decision, India's Union Home Minister Amit Shah reaffirmed in parliament the country's claim to the part of the region held by Pakistan and set parliamentary seats would be set aside for what India refers to as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
There are currently no formal talks between India and Pakistan, with relations having worsened after the decision on Jammu and Kashmir in 2019.
Sign up for Newsweek’s daily headlines
Although the last major war between India and Pakistan was in 1999, the so-called Line of Control remains tense, with sporadic episodes of shelling. India has also accused Pakistan of allowing insurgents to infiltrate.
While both countries have nuclear weapons, India's economy is more than 10 times as big as Pakistan's and is growing faster. India has now overtaken China as the world's most populous country and has more than six times as many people.
Violence Falls
In addition to its legal arguments for changing the region's status, India points to a reduction in violence in Jammu and Kashmir since the 2019 decision as well as infrastructure development. Investment in the region has surged, though historic divisions are far from resolved.
The Supreme Court said Article 370 had been a transient provision and that the Indian president's authority remained intact —with profound implications for the legal and constitutional landscape of the region.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, while delivering the judgement observed, "We have held all provisions of the Constitution of India can be applied to Jammu and Kashmir and non-application of mind cannot be claimed." He also stated, "We hold that president seeking concurrence of the union and not the state is not invalid. Thus, all provisions of the constitution can be applied to the J&K."
An art school teacher makes a painting depicting the Supreme Court's verdict on Article 370, in Mumbai on December 11, 2023. India's top court on December 11 upheld a move by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government to revoke the limited autonomy of Kashmir.
PHOTO BY INDRANIL MUKHERJEE / AFP
The judgment stipulated that Jammu and Kashmir did not maintain its sovereignty after acceding to the Union of India.
Another judge on the bench, Justice Kaul, said there was also a sentimental element to the decision —saying that one part of the population, meaning Kashmiri Hindus, had migrated.
"People of the state have paid a heavy price and inter-generational trauma the people have gone through, the state needs healing."
The Indian Supreme Court issued directions to the Election Commission of India, mandating the organization of elections in Jammu and Kashmir by September 2024.
Mixed Reaction
While Indian leaders, especially from nationalist Modi's ruling alliance, welcomed the court ruling, many opposition figures voiced disappointment and also called for the restoration of statehood —a possibility now that the court ruling is out of the way.
Indian National Congress MP and former Indian Minister P. Chidambaram said the Supreme Court had not ruled on splitting the state in two.
"The Indian National Congress has always demanded the restoration of full statehood for what has become the union territory of J&K. We welcome the Supreme Court's verdict in this regard. Full statehood must be restored immediately," he said.
But a fellow party leader Dr. Karan Singh, who is also the son of the last Maharaja (ruler) of Jammu and Kashmir, said in a statement to the media said, "I welcome it" while also calling for the restoration of statehood.
Jammu and Kashmir's regional political party National Conference's Leader and former regional Chief Minister Omar Abdullah voiced disappointment: "We were hoping for justice...We respect the Supreme Court...Our attempts will not end here. Will we approach the courts again? We will decide this after legal consultations".
Mehbooba Mufti, former Chief Minister, and local political party Peoples Democratic Party chief described the verdict as a "death sentence" not only for Jammu and Kashmir but also for the idea of India.
The Kashmiri Pandit (Hindu) community and other displaced groups welcomed the decision. They viewed the verdict as addressing the inequalities and challenges faced by marginalized communities in Jammu and Kashmir due to Article 370.
The judgment stipulated that Jammu and Kashmir did not maintain its sovereignty after acceding to the Union of India.
Another judge on the bench, Justice Kaul, said there was also a sentimental element to the decision —saying that one part of the population, meaning Kashmiri Hindus, had migrated.
"People of the state have paid a heavy price and inter-generational trauma the people have gone through, the state needs healing."
The Indian Supreme Court issued directions to the Election Commission of India, mandating the organization of elections in Jammu and Kashmir by September 2024.
Mixed Reaction
While Indian leaders, especially from nationalist Modi's ruling alliance, welcomed the court ruling, many opposition figures voiced disappointment and also called for the restoration of statehood —a possibility now that the court ruling is out of the way.
Indian National Congress MP and former Indian Minister P. Chidambaram said the Supreme Court had not ruled on splitting the state in two.
"The Indian National Congress has always demanded the restoration of full statehood for what has become the union territory of J&K. We welcome the Supreme Court's verdict in this regard. Full statehood must be restored immediately," he said.
But a fellow party leader Dr. Karan Singh, who is also the son of the last Maharaja (ruler) of Jammu and Kashmir, said in a statement to the media said, "I welcome it" while also calling for the restoration of statehood.
Jammu and Kashmir's regional political party National Conference's Leader and former regional Chief Minister Omar Abdullah voiced disappointment: "We were hoping for justice...We respect the Supreme Court...Our attempts will not end here. Will we approach the courts again? We will decide this after legal consultations".
Mehbooba Mufti, former Chief Minister, and local political party Peoples Democratic Party chief described the verdict as a "death sentence" not only for Jammu and Kashmir but also for the idea of India.
The Kashmiri Pandit (Hindu) community and other displaced groups welcomed the decision. They viewed the verdict as addressing the inequalities and challenges faced by marginalized communities in Jammu and Kashmir due to Article 370.
No comments:
Post a Comment