Who’s bothered by the changed status of J&K and Ladakh?


There have been assenting and dissenting reactions throughout Jammu and Kashmir after the big decision by the government. The Narendra Modi Government with the assent of the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha bifurcated the state into two Union Territories – UT of Jammu and Kashmir and UT of Ladakh. The State of Jammu and Kashmir was established by Maharaja Gulab Singh of Jammu in March 1846. He had purchased Kashmir from the British for Rs 75 lakh and coordinated it into the Dogra Kingdom comprising of Jammu and Ladakh.

Also Read:

The Narendra Modi Government not simply changed the political guide of the state; however it additionally changed the 69-year-old political status of the state. It rejected troublesome and prejudicial Article 370 and Article 35A and brought both the Union Territories under the ambit of the Indian Constitution. To be progressively exact, it executed the one country, one law precept to the recent Jammu and Kashmir State completely. The originator of Bharatiya Jan Sangh, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, had set out his life in Kashmir on June 23, 1953, to accomplish his “one banner, one constitution and one Prime Minister” most valued objective.

The Modi Government’s country making goals on Articles 370 and 35A and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Bill evoked reaction on anticipated lines. The country, the neglected individuals of Jammu and Ladakh, women, internally displaced Kashmiri Pandits, refugees from West Pakistan, Valmiki Samaj and Gorkhas all hailed the moves and expressed gratitude toward PM Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah. Why not? All things considered, they all had worked for over 70 years for the state’s full political, sacred and monetary coordination into India and had endured monstrous misfortunes all the while.

Conversely, all Kashmir-based lawmakers and their supporters in and outside Kashmir, who have exploited the emotions of gullible people of Kashmir contradicted the moves and named the decision of two Union Territories and rejecting of the state’s extraordinary status as deceit and murder of democracy. Their reluctance to accept the noteworthy move is not astonishing for reasons not so much hard to comprehend. All things considered, the change regarding Articles 370 and 35A, which had made a different republic of Jammu and Kashmir inside the Indian Republic, suddenly finished the Nehruvian time.

Both these Articles had driven the supporters of one specific religion in Kashmir to accept that they were a race separated and they merited a different and unique status inside the Union. The grave results were the disruption of democracy; the ascent of separatism; radicalization of society; forceful ouster of Kashmiri Pandits; unpleasant and hostile relations between regions and ethnicities of the erstwhile state, far-reaching discontent, dissatisfaction and antagonism in Jammu and Ladakh; express disregard of non-Muslim minorities; and the purposeful proceeds by Pakistan determined to make an impression the world over that Jammu and Kashmir was a contested region and its political future was up in the air. They could never discuss Pakistan Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Such has been their methodology.

With due respect to the positive and negative public opinion, the change will bring good for the innocent public but will also be challenging for the corrupt.