Talk:Article 370 of the Constitution of India/Archive 1

Archive 1

File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf Nominated for Deletion

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. 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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130105080905/http://www.kashmir-information.com:80/LegalDocs/Article370.html to http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/Article370.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

lead section is not in line with the page

" But the Article 370 clearly states that the provisions with respect to the state of Jammu and Kashmir are only temporary and not permanent ."

[1]

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][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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

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)

Done —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 07:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Consider (semi-)protecting this page

There will be a lot of information coming in the coming hours and days. This page should be preemptively protected from vandalism.

 Not done we dont do pre-emptive protection. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 09:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

A new low for Indian newspapers

This source written by "India Today web desk" 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)

NDTV has a broadcast of the confused Rajya Sabha session. It seems to me like Amit Shah said, by the Presidential order (see below), "all the provisions of Article 370" have been scrapped, not the Article 370 itself. Can somebody confirm? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 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)

I got your point. In Art 35A it was written that it was so I did it here. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

Keshavjoshi6969 (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It has not yet been removed from the sources I have seen. But it has been made apparently "toothless". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  samee  converse  18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The cited source says:

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”.

This does mean that the Governor or Sadar-i-Riyasat is not expected to act on his/her own capacity, but represent the advice of the Counicl of Ministers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

Resolution?

QEDK, I am not sure why you are changing "bill" to "resolution". Can you explain? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: My bad, I seem to have introduced the US system of naming (H.R. = House Resolution, S.R. = Senate Resolution) legislature paperwork, unintentionally, having been more involved with them in recent history. I will restore the usage in a bit. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Three orders in three days?

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)

Answering my own question, this was the same as the second order, which some media reported on 7 August. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding:...and there is no scope for further orders under Article 370 since the provisions under which the presidential orders were issued (the government's interpretation of 370's clauses 1 and 3), no longer exist in the revised text following C.O. 273. Abecedare (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2019

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)

 Done. I removed the whole section which seems to be dubious WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

UNDUE detail on clampdown

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)

Yes I looked at the suggested article which includes the mentioned material. I don't agree that these material are detail while they have been brought in the first paragraph of sources, they are significant info. This decision is about Kashmiri people and it is needed to describe the situation of those people when India revokes Kashmir's special status in the article. As you see, I have explained the situation briefly.As wp:DUE demanded, 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)

I removed the detailed info, as you asked.Saff V. (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Saff V: This is not the appropriate article for plugging in every bit of published opinion and news that may be true or fake from newspapers who are known for their leftist or rightist or one-sided bias. As Kautilya3 states, this is an article on Article 370. Such news may be okay in the other article he mentions, but only if NPOV guidelines are adhered to and because Jammu & Kashmir is more than Kashmir valley and some of these claims/opinions/news have been challenged or questioned by the other side(s). Please do not edit war (revert more than once in this and related articles) till we have a consensus on this talk page. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Very simple process

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)

To the first part, indeed. On the past rulings and the role of the Indian Supreme Court, our article is weak. Their SC has already ruled on quite many 370-related cases over the last 60 years (it seems, in India, pretty much anything significant goes to their Supreme Court!). If someone has a bit of time to carefully read the scholarly sources on 370-related SC cases, and add a brief summary, that might improve this article further.

Most past Presidential Orders to 370, since 1954 and Nehru-led government onwards, that extended sections or sub-sections of the Indian Constitution to Kashmir were based on their then central government assuming "proxy for 'state government' while the state is under President's rule". These past proxy practices by various Congress and other governments since 1954, their interpretations, and the precedence so set have generally been consistent and these past practices/proxies/amendments have not been declared unconstitutional by the SC so far. As Cottrell writes, "Article 370 has proved less a bulwark for autonomy than a tunnel in the wall' from the historical perspective. BTW, "most" is a significant word above, and one Cottrell uses in her "erosion of autonomy" section in the book published in 2013 by Cambridge University Press. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC

As per the Chief Ministers of Jammu and Kashmir page, the state was under the President's rule only three times (including the present one). Cottrell does say "a number of" (not "most"), but I suspect it is more a rhetorical thing than a reality. I will investigate. Can you locate the State Autonomy Committee report somewhere? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I am also removing the mention of Indian National Congress, unless there is evidence that Congress was acting outside national consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't know the count. We should check. I am fine with the "a number of". Cottrell does use the phrase "Most extensions of the Constitution of India to the state took place...". Yes, the context there is the 1954–1957 period. There is also the 1986 Presidential Order under Article 370 when Rajiv Gandhi's government was in Delhi. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Found the State Autonomy Committee Report, 2000. Only one of the 42 orders listed was under President's Rule (actually Governor's Rule). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Detailed numbers

• J&K Constitutent Assembly: 2 orders
• Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad: 8 orders
• G. M. Sadiq: 16 orders
• Syed Mir Qasim: 6 orders
• Sheikh Abdullah: 7 orders
• Farooq Abdullah: none
• G. M. Shah: 2 orders
• Governor's Rule/President's Rule (March 1986 – November 1986): 1 order

Of course, numbers alone don't mean much. Some of them could have been minor amendments and others substantive extensions. My feeling is that the majority of the extensions happened under G. M. Sadiq and Syed Mir Qasim, who were integrationists. The one order under Governor's Rule was probably a major one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I see the list of 42 on pages 80-83 of that Jammu & Kashmir government published report. The notes on pages 83-89 are useful too. One of these notes states that the erosion of autonomy was rapid and massive in the 1960s (p. 87). But on which page(s) are these names and orders issued with the respective state govt concurrence? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

They are listed with dates. We know which government was in power on those dates from Chief Ministers of Jammu and Kashmir. It is known that most of the integrationist measures were taken by G. M. Sadiq:

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.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

Great, thanks! A table listing all the CO's would be pointless, but a summary like the one I gave above can be useful. The trouble is that we don't know which of those orders were the substantive ones. Even to extend a normal constitutional amendment of the Union constitution to J&K, a CO would have been necessary. So, I suspect that most of these orders would have been routine ones. There would have been only 4-5 major orders. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I have downloaded the old Presidential orders and plan to read some scholarly sources on them this weekend. Will update with a table or something, if and where appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Fork?

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)

@Kautilya3: the original structure, its purpose from the perspective of the various sides, its evolution over the decades, the disputes related to Article 370 is intertwined with the history and politics. That forms the context in scholarly articles/chapters/books on Article 370 (see Abdul Noorani's text, e.g.). True, autonomy is a core issue, but [a] per scholarly sources, the different sides have different conceptions of what is autonomy and how much autonomy; [b] the elected state governments of Kashmir have evolved/proposed/accepted different conceptions over time. Per our NPOV guidelines, we should fairly present all sides and this evolution with context, as reflected in scholarly sources. I prefer keeping the history and politics context here, the significant and notable parts. If that might make this article too complex or long and difficult to maintain in a stable form in your experience, I am okay with a WP:SPINOFF with an NPOV distilled WP:SUMMARYSTYLE form here. For title, of the two I like the Autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir one, or perhaps History of Article 370 (India) or something intuitive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The page titles don't make a big difference because they can always be renamed, but the scope of the article is what we need to decide. Contrary to popular impressions, the Article 370 itself does not guarantee anything. It merely establishes a mechanism by which the Indian constitution can get applied to J&K. Nehru's description of it as a "pipe through which the Indian constitution flows to J&K" is quite apt. It is merely a legal vehicle. The real substance is the autonomy granted or not granted to J&K and the debates about what should be granted etc. So, even though the "History of Article 370" would be part of it, it is not necessarily the main focus. For instance, the details you added here yesterday about what was the practice during the British Raj era (which doesn't fit here because there was no Indian constitution then), but that can go to inform what kind of autonomy might have been expected under the Indian constitution. So a rough outline as to what can go in the new article:

• Autonomy during the British Raj
• Aspirations of the Kashmiri nationalist movement
• Negotiations between the Kashmiri and Indian governments
• The aspirations of Jammu and Ladakh populations
• Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad's concessions
• G.M. Sadiq's concessions
• Renewed National Conference: State Autonomy Committee, Regional Autonomy Committee
• The BJP/Indian nationalist policies and demands
• The present situation

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

That outline looks fine to me. I did not add anything from the British Raj period, by the way. I added a short 1950–1954 related summary, and the post-1954-related summary from Christophe Jaffrelot for NPOV. He has written a lot more on this subject, such as in his book published by the Princeton University Press. I hesitated in summarizing most of it for exactly the reason you mention: this is a constitutional law page and other than distilled context, does it really belong here? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

May be, your Special status of Jammu and Kashmir is better then. Suggest including a few more sections, such as Geography and demographics: Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh, The Congress policies and approach, etc for more context and NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Article 370 text

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)

@Kautilya3: The title of the section is "Original Text". We should stick with the original text, not provide a "Revised text". The right way to include later revisions etc is the refn note like the way we clarify the "repeal". We should also rely on appropriate scholarly sources in this Constitutional Law article, particularly when they are available. Avoid newspapers, magazines and questionable websites. India Today is okay for news, but not the appropriate source for historical/legal scholarship. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

SC refuses to repeal decision on Article 370 and army troops

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)

Noorani

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)

What you are labelling as "Jaffrelot" is the book called Hindu nationalism: A Reader, which is a compilation of primary sources to enlighten us about the the Hindu nationalist viewpoint. You can't attribute it to Jaffrelot. You can't even say, Jaffrelot "quoted" the material. He simply selected it for presentation. And, no, there is no comparison between the BJP/Sangh Parivar and Noorani, at least on constitutional matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the Sangh's lawyers have also said the same things:

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.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

References

It is another side of this dispute, regardless of the merits and demerits. What we must strive here to summarize all these sides, rather than take one side. Jethmalani is spot on, but please note that Article 370 has not been repealed, nor amended. Article 370 is still there. What has been revoked is the special status of J&K, using one of the active provisions of Article 370. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you have read the Jethmalani articles yet. Please do.

We are not going to let BJP propaganda and revisionist history masquerade as a reliable source in the name of "all sides". No other party's mouthpieces have been included in this article, and they won't be. It is one thing to add it when you thought it was written by Jaffrelot (which is surprising in itself), but your persistence on wanting to include it even after you know it to be BJP-authored is perplexing. Abecedare, Vanamonde93, Winged Blades of Godric, can you take a look? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Over this edit Sarah claims that 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.

This is flatly incorrect. I have that book and sans the introductory chapter, it is an anthology of primary sources from Hindu-nationalistic sphere, aimed to provide the readers with a view of their world. The cited portions does not contain any commentary from Jaffrelot, either and is actually, the preface of The Study Committee on Kashmir Affairs, BJP on Kashmir, BJP Publications, Delhi which is grossly unreliable unless being explicitly attributed. BJP's views and party-line on Kashmir has since-evolved and I don't see any reason to include political party stands on the locus, in these article, either.

What we must strive here to summarize all these sides, rather than take one side is 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.

tl;dr:- Sarah's write-up was factually wrong (along with being undue, even if corrected) and I support Kautilya's reverts in entirety. ∯WBG^converse 13:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should take a breath here. To be quite honest, Sarah Welch herself (I'm implying the sex from the name, don't mind) knew Jaffrelot's alignment before making the edits (she edited the subject's article before), so claiming that this is NPOV because we need both sides makes literally zero sense. Publishing books or being an academic does not automatically make you "scholarly" (or more importantly, a reliable source of information), it is an arbitrary term afterall. Andrew Wakefield was once a doctor, and a respected one at that. Not trying to draw parallels, just saying that your reason for the edits has no logic to it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I guess this dispute has already been settled but just for the record (since I was pinged): pages 207 to 217 of the cited reader are simply a reprint of the preface of the book BJP on Kashmir written by the party's The Study Committee on Kashmir Affairs and published by its in-house press in 1995. As such, any of those pages' content and views should be attributed to BJP circa 1995 and definitely not to Christophe Jaffrelot. Even if we were to cite BJP's views with correct attribution, it would be better to use a secondary scholarly source that presents a digested version of those views than to try to pick bits from the primary source, BJP on Kashmir. Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Bodh Raj Sharma source

@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)

In 1958, the Article 370 and the autonomy of J&K would have been current events, with meagre amount of evidence available. Surely, current scholarship which has much more evidence on hand overrides whatever Sharma says? Since you say Cottrell has cited him and ignored the views that you chose to include, I would think she didn't find them convincing. This points to they being WP:FRINGE views. I notice, by the way, Sharma does not even bother to reference the Constituent Assembly discussions before propounding his own theories, in contrast to modern scholars. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Where does Cottrell reject Sharma? In my read, Sharma's views are not fringe. They reflect a significant side, and much in this paragraph you removed is exactly the argument the Nehru government, the Indira Gandhi government, the Rajiv Gandhi government, and the current Indian government has made when issuing the Presidential orders relating to Article 370. If you have specific concerns, such as with the sentence in this para, i.e., "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", please delete or modify that sentence. There is no need to delete the rest. Same with the other para. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

There is only one other sentence in the paragraph, which is already covered in Noorani's point 6 in a more accurate way. I don't understand what "significant side" you are speaking of. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we keep something from Sharma for two reasons. One, it is a historical peg, a scholar's view in 1958 near when the original and the 1954 Presidential order was being issued. Second, as you say, Noorani provides a different view, in a more accurate way. How about we add in the disagreement and Abdul Noorani's view. For example, as follows (feel free to reword to more accurately summarize the source):

"According to a 1958 analysis by Bodh Raj Sharma, the original Article 370 stipulates that "only two articles of the Indian Constitution will apply in full to this state and that other provisions of the Constitution will apply to this state with exceptions and modifications specified by the President in his Order and that all such Orders of the President shall be issued either in consultation with or the concurrence of the government of the state".[Sharma|1958|p=284] According to Sharma, "the President can, however, by public notification declare that Article 370 ceases to be operative from a particular date."[Sharma|1958|p=284] According to Noorani, this is not entirely accurate, and [... add Noorani's view ...].

I will support putting some this or Sharma's views in a ref note somewhere appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No views have any inherent privilege to be included in an encyclopedia. We include views only if they are notable views or they border on authentic information but can't be stated in Wikipedia voice for some reason or other.

The first bit you want to see included is already there at the end of the "Analysis section". But I will move it to the "Presidential orders" where it fits better.

The second bit you want to include is misinformation. Bodh Raj Sharma never said that the concurrence of the state government is unnecessary. You have just cherry-picked a quote that misinforms. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 17 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)

Sure, if there are more sources, we can look at them. But my principle remains the same. Viewpoints only need to be included if they are notable or they border on authentic information. For Pakistani authors too, the same principle applies. They don't get a free pass by virtue of being Pakistani. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Human rights section

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)

@Kautilya3: They are good sources. For example, we have already been citing Cottrell's Cambridge Univ Press source, which is a good source. She explains the women's right part too in Article 370 context. Other scholarly sources available on jstor and elsewhere cover it too in Article 370 context. It is notable therefore. It does not matter whether a law exists, no longer exists, is passed, or is a failed bill, or is struck down by a Court or is repealed. If it relates to Article 370, or Article 370 is argued in its support or opposition, plus discussed in multiple scholarly sources, then it is relevant and due. On 35A, you are right. 35A also has been one of the significant elements in the asymmetry in human rights in Jammu & Kashmir. But so is Article 370, not because I say so, but because the scholarly sources say so. I plan to add it back. If you prefer exact Article 370-related quotes from the sources, please let me know. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Article 35A is the article that allows permanent resident privileges. So, all the coverage of permanent residents belongs there, not here. Cottrell's article is about "autonomy" in general, which involves both 370 and 35A. So it is not a good guide for deciding what belongs here and what belongs on that page. We need to use our judgement. Even then, I notice that she devotes only a few lines to the Disqualification Bill, which is overblown here in your coverage.

There is plenty of other stuff regarding human rights in the Cottrell article which hasn't been covered. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I will welcome your revisions, trimming, additions, suggestions as always. But, we should not conflate "OR/censure" and "our judgment". I suggest we stick with the scholarly sources. I am fine with a short summary here (shorter than what I was thinking last weekend), while a fuller version in 35A or another appropriate article. Cottrell is certainly mentioning 370 in her rights section. Other scholarly sources too. Per these sources, the politicians in Jammu and Kashmir threw furniture at each other and made emotional speeches citing "Article 370" while passing bills in the 2000s and even 2010. There is a lot more going on. This is significant, notable, due in this article. Technically too, because in the Analysis section, our article mentions the six special provisions and the asymmetry in human rights flows from them. Second, before I ever edited this article, the lead has mentioned: "As a result of this provision, Indian citizens from other states could not purchase land or property in Jammu & Kashmir". That is incomplete. Our article should not imply or mislead wikipedia readers that asymmetric "property right" is the only result of Article 370. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, Article 370 limits the applicability of the Indian constitution, including the Article on citizenship. Article 35A deals with how the citizenship provisions are limited. For the man on the street, including the Kashmir legislators apparently, everything happens "under Article 370". We have a separate page on 35A because its issues are much larger than all others. (If not for that, we would have covered it here.) So, it doesn't make sense to copy the whole of 35A material here.

I note for the record that your entire section on Human rights makes no mention of 370 except for a passing mention in the first sentence, which turns out to be wrong. This is the clearest proof that you are not in fact dealing with 370 here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I will fix it and the section today and over this week. Others and you are welcome to revise it further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:15, 13 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)

• This is a fly-by comment and not rechecked for compliance with sources:- In the Human-Rights section, there's a whole lot of stuff about 35A; not 370. There needs to be mentions due to the interlinking but I disagree on the current extent of coverage. ∯WBG^converse 14:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Could you explain what "I disagree on the current extent of coverage" means? I'm not clear on that. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

More or less around Kautilya3's argumentation, above. I also sense some POV issues but need to consult my books (prob. 'morrow). ∯WBG^converse 18:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Susheela Sawhney case

Ms Sarah Welch,

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.

Your content says the exact opposite. Is this another BJP propaganda source you are using? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Kautilya3: No. That section is incomplete. The Sawhney case is complicated. When it was originally filed (1979), it was first ruled by one judge. That judgment quashed her appointment, as the scholarly source I cited states. There were numerous more cases where government employment opportunities were denied based on discriminatory J&K laws/practices of the state government. All these cases piled up. Decades after some these cases waited in the Jammu & Kashmir High court, a full bench reviewed the appealed case in 2002 (I do not understand why it took 23 years of wait. Dr Susheela Sawhney likely was nearing her retirement age!). The "full bench" reversed the past rulings, and that is what the source you link above is selectively relying on and selectively stating without the history. Yet, the scholarly sources are saying that the executive branches of the state government pretty much ignored the court's ruling of 2002, and the plaintiffs went back to the state court. Again. The drama continued for a while, all in the context of Article 370 (and 35A). All this needs to be better explained while citing the WP:RS of course. Sorry, I am a bit slow in helping out here, as I am trying to check multiple scholarly sources plus have some real life commitments. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Mostly true, as far as I remember. But, the rulings by lower courts were not highly uniform, in the regard.

In a part. case, (centered around the inheritance-rights of a daughter, married to a non-permanent resident), the lower court ruled in her favor. In another case, a district court had rejected the government's step of withdrawing a job-letter, after she got married to a non-permanent resident. ∯WBG^converse 18:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Syama Prasad Mookerjee

The petition filed by Syama Prasad Mookerjee in the Srinagar High Court shortly before his death:

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. 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

Harish Salve opinions

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)

What is this source?

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)

Thank you. The full citation for the correct source is this:

• Sofi, Waseem Ahmad (2017), Federalism and Autonomy in Indian Political System A Study of Jammu and Kashmir, Aligarh Muslim University/Shodhganga

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@ZuhaSarai: Any plan to restore that content? On face of it, it looks important.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 07:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for Editing Applicability of the Indian law to Jammu and Kashmir

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)

The page is on Article 370, and it describes the applicability of the Indian law under Article 370. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

International law section

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. 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. Since mid-1954, this autonomy was slowly abrogated and the powers of Indian president and central government were drastically increased.

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. 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. 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.

References

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)

@Kautilya3: On pages 301-302, Farrell explains the link between Article 370, "creation of the Assembly" and self-determination. I am open to adding a bit more summary, to explain and clarify that. On Sumati Subbiah, you provided that source in your email to me. Subbiah does state what I summarized. Do you have a source that states "Security Council could certainly have obtained a legal opinion"? If so, we can certainly add a summary from it for NPOV. Similarly, if you have a source for "What matters is whether the Indian government has the ability to unilaterally assume powers" in international law context, please provide. If t/p watchers have sources that may be relevant to this, those will also be welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I am questioning this section on the grounds of relevance. So, NPOV or not is not the issue. The Security Council only dealt with the India–Pakistan dispute. It didn't worry about the Instrument of Accession and what limits it might impose on internal governance. So, all this stuff doesn't belong here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 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)

The Presidential Order

I haven't yet found any RS commenting on the Presidential order:

• THE CONSTITUTION (APPLICATION TO JAMMU AND KASHMIR) ORDER, 2019 c.o. 272

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)

Concurrence

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)

In the newsreport nowhere it says Kashmir has elected Govt in place and Presidential order 2019 was revoked with Govt concurrence? Which source you have to back it? Kashwritesback (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It says so here:

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.

Whether this is valid procedure or not is for the Supreme Court of India to decide. It is not Wikipedia's job to take a position on it here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

I did not claim anything. I just summarised what the RS said. I am afraid you are not understanding what the sources say, and what the article says either. With the "Concurrence of the government of Jammu and Kashmir" is what the Presidential Order said. Do you disagree with that? Please answer that first. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You are claiming the article was issued "in concurrence of jammu and Kashmir government" which is Governor now. Don't try now that you're not understanding what I mean. Either you restore whole article or I will delete the whole paragraph. It's misleading and I have raised complaint against you. Kashwritesback (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Please state whether you agree or disagree with the statement that the Presidential Order said it was issued with "the concurrence of the government of J&K". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence

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)

Young Deezy

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)

English grammar

Benifiets Disadvantages 106.195.98.131 (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

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.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Article 370

Google 202.168.145.158 (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Sst

Article 370in Jammu and Kashmir 2401:4900:41C9:9646:B977:CD32:CF3:F94E (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)