COPYRIGHT NOTICE

©copyright act @2019

All rights reserved.
No part of this report can be reproduced in any form for means
like printed, digital, etc. without prior written permission of the
writer. In case of violation of this act, all procedings will be
liable to Indore Jurisdiction only.
 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

TO

THE DIRECTOR

SGSITS INDORE

12 OCTOBER, 2019

Sir

SUBJECT: Letter of transmittal on "Article 370".

This report written with reference to your letter number SGSITS/183/2019, in which you have asked us to
study "Abrogation of Article 370".

We would like to present our findings and recommendations concerning the same. We hope that this
report will give you an insight into the nature of the topic and its possible solution.

Yours Faithfully

Poorvi Tiwari

Chirag Somani

Himanshu Deshmukh

Swastik

Ashkrit Tiwari
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our special thanks of gratitude to our

lecturer Neha Motwani madam as well as our teaching staf
who gave us the golden opportunity to present a wonderful
report on the topic "Abrogation of Article 370". We came to
know about lot of new things and we would also like to thank
our colleagues who helped us in finalising. We would also like to
thank profusely faculty members of the language group for
their encouraging comments and suggestions. At home front,
we sincerely acknowledge the support encouragement we got
from our class teacher, for the unstinting cooperation and
afectionate concern extended during the course of project.

PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 370

Article 370 embodied six special provisions for Jammu and Kashmir:

1. It exempted the State from the complete applicability of the Constitution of India. The State
was conferred with the power to have its own Constitution.

2. Central legislative powers over the State were limited, at the time of framing, to the three
subjects of defence, foreign afairs and communications.

3. Other constitutional powers of the Central Government could be extended to the State only
with the concurrence of the State Government.

4. The 'concurrence' was only provisional. It had to be ratified by the State's Constituent
Assembly.

5. The State Government's authority to give 'concurrence' lasted only until the State Constituent
Assembly was convened. Once the State Constituent Assembly finalised the scheme of powers
and dispersed, no further extension of powers was possible.

6. Article 370 could be abrogated or amended only upon the recommendation of the State's
Constituent Assembly.

Once the State's Constitutional Assembly convened on 31 October 1951, the State
Government's power to give `concurrence' lapsed. After the Constituent Assembly dispersed on
17 November 1956, adopting a Constitution for the State, the only authority provided to extend
more powers to the Central Government or to accept Central institutions vanished.

Why is Kashmir controversial?

1. J&K’s accession to India in 1947 was hurried and controversial

Prior to the 1947 partition, which established India and Pakistan as separate nations, J&K was a
Muslim-majority princely state that was subject to indirect, rather than direct, rule under the
British.This status gave the region’s Hindu ruler, Maharajah Hari Singh, the power to decide
whether the state would accede to India or Pakistan in 1947 — or become independent. An
incursion by Pakistani raiders in October 1947 and a subsequent war between the two countries
resulted in Hari Singh hurriedly acceding to India. While Indian leaders welcomed his decision,
Pakistan maintained that Hari Singh was in no position to make this choice on behalf of his
people.This troubled context led the Constituent Assembly of India to enact Article 370 in 1949;
when the Indian constitution came into force in 1950, so did Article 370.India always intended
this provision to be temporary — and Hindu nationalist groups have pushed for its revocation
since the 1950s. But for Kashmiris, especially Kashmiri Muslims, Article 370 has long held
symbolic value as a guardian of their unique identity within India. It also has provided them with
real benefits, including preference in securing local jobs.

2. Insurgent violence in Kashmir did not arise overnight

After the 1947-1948 Indo-Pakistani war, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 47 in April
1948. This resolution held that Pakistan must withdraw its troops from the region, India must
reduce its military presence, and India must hold a referendum to allow the Kashmiri people to
determine their own fate.In elections held in Indian-administered Kashmir in 1951, voters
supported J&K’s union with India. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of the Congress Party used
these results to argue that the will of the Kashmiri people had rendered the referendum
question irrelevant. India’s Congress government reiterated this position in 1954-1955 when it
alleged that Pakistan had failed to withdraw its troops, which was a precondition for the
referendum.State-level elections in Kashmir in 1987 precipitated insurgent violence. The J&K
National Conference (JKNC) party, which supported the state’s integration with India, was
declared victorious. However, election observers suggested that the Muslim United Front (MUF)
coalition, which favored separatism, had won the contest. In the aftermath of the 1987
elections, numerous young Kashmiri Muslim men began joining insurgent groups, and the
government instituted curfews, lockdowns and other forms of repression. In early 1990,
Kashmir also witnessed the mass exodus of the Hindu Pandit community, when Muslim
militants targeted this local minority.

3. The marginalization of Kashmiri Muslims could increase violence

Political science research suggests two pathways through which violence in Kashmir could
escalate following the revocation of Article 370. First, studies indicate that when a national
minority in a peripheral region is politically excluded from power, such exclusion can fuel
insurgent violence. The recent house arrests of prominent Kashmiri politicians could further
increase Kashmiri Muslims’ sense of marginalization, and invigorate rebel groups. A second way
that conflict might escalate is through strengthening nativist sentiments. Scholars call these
“sons of the soil” conflicts — when incoming migrants clash with native populations. This type
of violence in India has been tied to ethnic riots and insurgencies.

4. But job creation and political inclusion could help stabilize the area

In his Aug. 8 address, Modi promised peace and development for Kashmir and appealed to
citizens to invest in the region to boost job growth. Evidence from India’s other long-running
insurgency — the Maoist conflict, which has also afected states that were previously under
indirect rule — suggests that generating employment can stanch conflict. But whether India will
create enough jobs to stem the deep-seated grievances of Kashmiri Muslims remains to be
seen. There’s another potential pathway to mitigate violence — if younger local leaders can
come to replace dynastic politics, which is commonplace in J&K. The two main parties in the
region — the JKNC and the J&K People’s Democratic Party (JKPDP) — are headed by well-to-do
Muslim families who have dominated Kashmiri politics for generations. Modi has implied that
repealing Articles 370 and 35A would allow fresh faces to enter the electoral arena. Changes in
local leadership could dampen the sense of exclusion among Kashmiri Muslims and help to
restore their faith in Indian democracy. This would entail genuine political representation and
transparent and fair elections. However, if the BJP’s revocation of Article 370 — which required
approval from J&K’s government — is anything to go by, then such political liberalization does
not appear to be part of the ruling party’s modus operandi.

Stone pelting take place often in the valley either with the aim of disrupting harmony or when some
people opposes decision of government.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ATRICLE 370

The state of Jammu and Kashmir original
accession, like all other princely states,
was on three matters: defence, foreign affairs
and communications. All the princely states
were invited to send representatives to India's
Constituent Assembly, which was formulating a constitution for the whole of India. They
were also encouraged to set up constituent assemblies for their own states. Most states
were unable to set up assemblies in time, but a few states did, in particular Saurashtra
Union, Travancore-Cochin and Mysore. Even though the States Department developed
a model constitution for the states, on 19 May 1949, the rulers and chief ministers of all
the states met in the presence of States Department and agreed that separate
constitutions for the states were not necessary. They accepted the Constitution of India
as their own constitution. The states that did elect constituent assemblies suggested a
few amendments which were accepted. The position of all the states (or unions of
states) thus became equivalent to that of regular Indian provinces. In particular, this
meant that the subjects available for legislation by the central and state governments
was uniform across India.[18]

In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, the representatives to the Constituent Assembly[19]
requested that only those provisions of the Indian Constitution that corresponded to the
original Instrument of Accession should be applied to the State and that the state's
constituent assembly, when formed, would decide on the other matters. Government of
India agreed to the demands shortly before the above meeting with the other states.
[note 1] Accordingly, the Article 370 was incorporated into the Indian Constitution, which
stipulated that the other articles of the Constitution that gave powers to the Central
Government would be applied to Jammu and Kashmir only with the concurrence of the
State's constituent assembly. This was a "temporary provision" in that its applicability
was intended to last till the formulation and adoption of the State's constitution.[21]
However, the State's constituent assembly dissolved itself on 25 January 1957 without
recommending either abrogation or amendment of the Article 370. Thus, the Article was
considered to have 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

Article 370 of the Constitution is a ‘temporary provision’ which promises to grant

autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir and limits Parliament’s powers to make laws
for the state. Under Part XXI of the Constitution titled “Temporary, transitional and
special provisions", Article 370 is categorised as a “temporary provision with respect to
the State of Jammu and Kashmir".

Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, the Article limits Parliament’s powers to

make laws to those matters in the Union and Concurrent Lists, in consultation with the
state government, as declared by the President, which should correspond with matters
specified under of Instrument of Accession, the statute says. The Jammu and Kashmir
Assembly currently stands dissolved.

In effect, Article 370 says that Parliament will need the state government’s concurrence
for applying any law, except those that fall in the domains of defence, foreign affairs,
finance and communications. Issues like ownership of property, fundamental rights and
citizenship are covered under a separate law for Jammu and Kashmir.

It also lays down that only two Articles of the Constitution will apply to Jammu and
Kashmir – Article 1 which defines India and Article 370 itself. The provision was included
in the Constitution on 17 October, 1949.

Article 370 itself mentions Article 1, which includes J&K in the list of states. Article 370
has been described as a tunnel through which the Constitution is applied to J&K. Nehru,
however, said in Lok Sabha on November 27, 1963 that “Article 370 has eroded”. India
has used Article 370 at least 45 times to extend provisions of the Indian Constitution to
J&K. This is the only way through which, by mere Presidential Orders, India has almost
nullified the effect of J&K’s special status. By the 1954 order, almost the entire
Constitution was extended to J&K including most Constitutional amendments. Ninety-
four of 97 entries in the Union List are applicable to J&K; 26 out of 47 items of the
Concurrent List have been extended.; 260 of 395 Articles have been extended to the
state, besides 7 of 12 Schedules.

The Centre has used Article 370 even to amend a number of provisions of J&K’s
Constitution, though that power was not given to the President under Article 370. Article
356 was extended though a similar provision that was already in Article 92 of the J&K
Constitution, which required that President’s Rule could be ordered only with the
concurrence of the President. To change provisions for the Governor being elected by
the Assembly, Article 370 was used to convert it into a nominee of the President. To
extend President’s rule beyond one year in Punjab, the government needed the 59th,
64th, 67th and 68th Constitutional Amendments, but achieved the same result in J&K
just by invoking Article 370. Again, Article 249 (power of Parliament to make laws on
State List entries) was extended to J&K without a resolution by the Assembly and just
by a recommendation of the Governor. In certain ways, Article 370 reduces J&K’s
powers in comparison to other states. It is more useful for India today than J&K.

Article 3 of the J&K Constitution declares J&K to be an integral part of India. In the
Preamble to the Constitution, not only is there no claim to sovereignty, but there is
categorical acknowledgement about the object of the J&K Constitution being “to further
define the existing relationship of the state with the Union of India as its integral part
thereof. Moreover people of state are referred as ‘permanent residents’ not ‘citizens’.”
Article 370 is not an issue of integration but of autonomy. Those who advocate its
deletion are more concerned with uniformity rather than integration.
Calls for the Abrogation of Article
370
The state of Jammu and Kashmir includes three distinct regions: Buddhist Ladakh, Hindu Jammu and
Muslim Kashmir. These comprise 62.3%, 22.7% and 15% of the area of the state. This means that
Kashmir is merely 15% of the total area of the state. The tables are turned when it comes to
demographics. Kashmir is most populous, comprising 53.9% of the state population with Jammu
forming 43.7% and Ladakh a mere 2.3% share.

Like many a political entity, the modern state of Jammu and Kashmir is a historical accident. During the
dying days of the Mughal Empire, the revolting Sikhs established their own short-lived empire. They first
conquered Jammu and then expanded to Kashmir. Starting in 1834, Zorawar Singh Kahluria, the Dogra
general of the Sikhs, led audacious campaigns in high altitude to conquer Buddhist Ladakh and Shia
Baltistan. In 1841, Kahluria ended up with a lance in his chest when he attempted to conquer western
Tibet, but the Dogras now controlled a swathe of territory, which is currently shared between India,
Pakistan and China.

In the 1840s, the Sikh Empire disintegrated. The Dogras led by Gulab Singh seized their chance. In 1846,
the Sikhs and the British came to recognize Dogra sovereignty and they became one of the 584 princely
states of British India. Singh and his progeny ruled over a Muslim-majority kingdom while paying
obeisance to the British. Hari Singh, the last Dogra ruler, was portly, extravagant and worthless. This
former page boy to Lord Curzon was blackmailed by a Parisian prostitute for a princely sum of £300,000
in 1921, or $16 million in today’s terms. Needless to say, such debauchery did not enamor Singh to his
subjects.

While most royal families joined newly independent India or Pakistan, Hari Singh had illusions and
delusions of grandeur. He wanted to rule a Himalayan Switzerland. Pakistan saw Muslim-majority
Kashmir as a natural part of its nation-building project and dispatched Pashtun tribesmen to wrest it. In a
panic, the Dogra ruler signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947, and Indian troops
landed in Srinagar. Even as Indian troops were pushing back Pashtun tribesmen, Jawaharlal Nehru,
India’s first prime minister, took the matter to the United Nations on January 1, 1948.

Nearly four months later, the UN Security Council called for a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir. First,
Pakistan was supposed to withdraw Pashtun tribesmen and its nationals. Second, India would then
reduce its forces “progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in
the maintenance of law and order.” Then, there would be a plebiscite that would decide where the state
would go. The resolution remains stillborn till this date because neither party has followed it.

Instead of troops decreasing in Kashmir as per the resolution, they have only increased over the years.
The reason is simple: Neither Pakistan nor India trust each other. Besides, for each of them, the Kashmir
Valley is an essential part of its nation-building project. For Pakistan, Muslim-majority Kashmir must be a
part of its territory. For multicultural India, Kashmir as a part of its nation proves this is home to diverse
communities who are all part of an exquisite mosaic. Kashmir is an existential issue that is tied to the
very identity of both nations.

Since independence, India and Pakistan have clashed repeatedly over Kashmir. The first war began in
October 1947 and ended in January 1949. It led to the de facto division of the region along the so-called
Line of Control (LoC), the unofficial borderline that has lasted until today. The two countries fought two
full-scale wars in 1965 and 1971. The second of the wars led to the creation of Bangladesh. They also
clashed over Siachen and Kargil in 1985 and 1999 respectively. There have been numerous other
occasions when tensions have run high.

Today, the former Dogra state of Jammu and Kashmir is divided between India, Pakistan and China.
Pakistan controls the northern special province of Gilgit-Baltistan and the sickle-shaped Azad Kashmir
sub-region since 1949. It is well recorded that Pakistan with its tradition of military dictatorships has
gradually changed the demography of both these regions. It has also ceded Shaksgam Valley to China
in 1963 in an efort to seal an alliance with the Middle Kingdom in the aftermath of the 1962 Indo-
China War.

After its resounding victory in 1962, China took control of Aksai Chin from India. Until then, this had been
a part of Ladakh. Culturally, this part of India had deep relations with Tibet for centuries. China first
invaded Tibet in 1950 and the Dalai Lama fled to India in 1959. In the dispute over the state of Jammu
and Kashmir, China remains an oft-forgotten but integral member of a messy ménage à trois.

India’s policy on the state of Jammu and Kashmir is a lot more complex than the Indian, Pakistani or
foreign press make it out to be. In the early days, there were close relations between Sheikh Abdullah,
the Kashmiri leader campaigning against Dogra autocratic rule, and Nehru. Once the last Dogra ruler
acceded to India, Abdullah took over as the elected leader of the state. His relations with Nehru soured
soon.

Part of the reason was a visit by Adlai Stevenson, who had just lost the presidential election to Dwight
Eisenhower. This Democrat met Abdullah twice and Indians suspected him of instigating Kashmiri
independence. A newspaper reported that the US would give Kashmir a loan of $15 million, at least
5,000 American families would stay in hotels or houseboats, Americans would buy Kashmiri crafts and
help to electrify all villages within three years. Like Hari Singh before him, Abdullah was supposedly
swayed by visions of being the big boss of the Switzerland of the Himalayas. As per rumors, he was
planning to declare independence on August 21, 1953, the auspicious day of Eid. Instead, Abdullah was
arrested on August 8 and Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed took charge.

In 1949, Nehru directed the drafters of the Constitution of India to give the state of Jammu and Kashmir
special autonomy. They drafted Article 370 to govern India’s relations with the state. Many declare that
this provision is the basis of the state’s entry into India. In fact, this article was in Part XXI titled,
“Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions.” Louise Tillin maintains that “Article 370 was a
temporary expediency designed to govern the state’s relations with India before the military conflict over
its status could be resolved.”

Right from the outset, this article proved controversial. People in Jammu, Ladakh and the rest of the
country bitterly opposed Article 370 while Kashmiris passionately supported it. The article allowed the
state to have a separate constitution, a state flag and administrative autonomy. Only defense, foreign
afairs and communications were to remain in New Delhi’s hands. A constituent assembly was elected in
1951 and dissolved in 1956 that drafted a separate constitution for Jammu and Kashmir, a privilege not
allowed to any other Indian state.

Even as Nehru threw Abdullah into jail, his government imposed only part of the constitution in Jammu
and Kashmir. In particular, Nehru’s government issued Article 35A into the constitution under a
presidential order under Article 370. Article 35A gave the state government of Jammu and Kashmir the
power to decide who can purchase land, vote, contest elections, get government employment, and avail
educational or health care benefits. They decided to give these rights only to permanent residents of the
state.

Kashmiris have feared that India would emulate Pakistan and change its demography. They were terrified
of losing the demographic advantage in the state. So, they defined permanent residency very
restrictively. Hindus and Sikhs who immigrated from modern-day Pakistan during or after the partition of
1947 were denied permanent residency and still do not have the right to vote in state elections. Women
who married men from another state no longer qualified as permanent residents. Nor do their children.

Over the years, India whittled down provisions of Article 370, but Jammu and Kashmir’s politicians
retained more power than their counterparts in other states. Yet the state remained restive. Over the
decades, many hoist the Pakistani flag, sing its anthem and, in recent years, wear its cricket jersey. In
2007, a poll found that 87% Kashmiris wanted independence while 90% Jammuites wanted to stay in
India.

There is an argument to be made that New Delhi has erred egregiously in dealing with Kashmiris. In
1987, Rajiv Gandhi, Nehru’s grandson, reportedly rigged the elections a bit too blatantly in favor of
Farooq Abdullah, Sheikh Abdullah’s son. The losers of that election formed the All Party Hurriyat
Conference, which has been campaigning for self-determination since. More importantly, most analysts
blame Gandhi’s decision for the insurgency that broke out in 1989 and has lasted ever since.

For the last 30 years, India has thrown money and men to solve the problem. New Delhi gives Jammu
and Kashmir 14,225 rupees ($200) per capita as a central grant, as compared to the national average of
3,681 rupees ($52). Most of this money has ended up in the pockets of corrupt dynasties of whom the
Abdullahs are said to take pole position. Yet some of it certainly goes to Kashmiris who enjoy subsidized
food, fuel and other benefits denied to other Indians. New Delhi hopes it can bribe them into being loyal
Indians. At the same time, army, paramilitary and police swarm all over the tiny Kashmir Valley to keep
insurgency in check.
The United Nations has concluded that both Indian and Pakistani forces have committed human rights
violations on both sides of the border. Violations on the Indian side have been covered widely in The
New York Times, Al Jazeera and other news organizations. What has not been covered is how the
oppressed have turned oppressors. Furious at the loyalty of Jammuites and Ladakhis to India,
Kashmiris have systematically denied them money, marginalized them politically and neglected their
infrastructure. They have also engaged in the ethnic cleansing of the minority Kashmiri Pandits. In 2016,
the BBC reported that between 3,000 to 5,000 Pandits were left in Kashmir Valley, “a far cry from the
300,000 who used to live there.”

The sufering of Buddhist Ladakhis has practically gone unchronicled. These simple mountain folk are
kindred spirits to Tibetans. They have similar language, customs, cuisine, culture and way of life to the
people of the Dalai Lama. Along with Sikkim, Ladakh is one of the two Buddhist enclaves left in the land
of the Buddha. Terrified of what China has done to their brethren and what the Taliban did to Bamiyan,
Ladakhis have yearned for protection from New Delhi for decades but have been treated like
stepchildren. In India’s rambunctious democracy, they have been too few in number to swing national
elections and hence have been largely ignored.

In one of India’s great parliamentary performances that has gone utterly unreported in the international
press, Jamyang Namgyal, the 34-year-old MP representing Ladakh, welcomed the measure to repeal
Article 370. His reasoning was simple: Kashmiris have discriminated against Ladakhis on all fronts. They
force Ladakhis to learn Urdu. Their own language is not taught in schools. Urdu is a glorious language
but is alien to Ladakhis and they find its Persian script daunting. When Ladakhis struggle in Urdu,
Kashmiris mock them as unintelligent child-like people. When it comes to schools, hospitals, roads,
drinking water or jobs, Ladakhis come last. Just as many Kashmiris want independence from India, most
Ladakhis want freedom from Kashmir.
 Effects on rights of people of Kashmir
Children as young as 9-years-old had been picked up under preventive
detention in the immediate aftermath of the August 5

lockdown in Jammu and Kashmir, a report filed before the Supreme

court on Tuesday said.

The report filed by the four-judge Juvenile Justice Committee (JC) of the
J&K High court, however, maintains that the detainee' children were
released from custody on the same day as their

detention' and no child was kept or taken into illegal detention by the
Police authorities as strict adherence is placed on the provisions of the
Juvenile Justice Act.

The four-member JJC, which includes justices AM Magrey, DS Thakur,

Sanjeev Kumar and Rashid Ali Dar of the J&K High court, has not made
any comments on the inquiry conducted, but has

reproduced the report filed by the DGP Srinagar, who has "categorically
refuted the assertions and allegations made in the media reports" and
the PIL.
According to the data attached to the report, 144 children under 18
years of age had been picked up by police between August 5 and
September 23 this year.

Eighty six of these children were picked-up under Preventive Detention

provisions of the Criminal procedure Code in areas said to be afected
by stone-pelting and other disturbance.

The remaining children were arrested under allegations of rioting,

stone-pelting, causing damage to public property, wrongfully

restraining movement of persons and attacking police personnel.

An 11-year-old was picked-up under section 107 under CrPC provisions

from Batamaloo on August 5, while a 9-year-old and an 11-year-old
from Batamaloo were picked up on August 7. All

these children were released the same day they were detained,
according to the chart filed by police.

Civil rights activists urged the government on Saturday to restore

Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution and take steps to bring back
normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir.
Social activist Shabnam Hashmi said the abrogation of Article 370,
which gave a special status to Jammu and Kashmir, was a mindless
exercise carried out by the BJP-led government.

"The government first did demonetisation and said this will end
terrorism. Then they did surgical strikes and said terror had ended. On
February 26, after the Balakot airstrike, they claimed that we had killed
around 600 militants.

"Now, they have published an advertisement in newspapers, saying

shops and schools are shut in the valley due to the fear of militants. If

the government has killed all the militants, then whom

are they talking about now," Hashmi told reporters at the Press Club
here.

Several check post were set up by the administration to prevent

activities that could break harmony.
Delhi-based journalist and writer Revati Laul said removing Article 370
was the main cause of trauma for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

"People in Jammu have lost business because it was being force-fed this
narrative that you have to say you like it. In Jammu, more people
refused to talk to us as compared to Kashmir," she said The activists
urged the government to restore Articles 370 and 35A, mobile and
internet services and remove the restrictions on the movement of
people in the valley

The situation in Jammu and Kashmir is "normal" and the people there
are "happy" over the abrogation of Article as 370 provisions

they will now get benefits and entitlements on par with citizens of

rest of the country, information and broadcasting minister Prakash

Javadekar has said He also asserted that there have been no restrictions
on media and that all newspapers are being published in the Valley
without any difficulty

The minister also rejected the opposition's charge that the BJP was
using withdrawal of Jammu and Kashmir's special status as poll plank in
the run-up to assembly elections in Haryana and Maharashtra, saying it
was the people who were talking

about the historic move as it caught their imagination.

"Article 370 has caught the imagination of people. The people are
welcoming it all over the country. So what can you do, all sections of the
society (have welcomed it)," he said.

Asked about the situation in Kashmir following the abrogation of Article

370 provisions, he said the situation remains"good" and it is
"normal""People in the Valley supporting the government's move...
They are welcoming the move because it will benefit them," he said.

Javadekar said people in Jammu and Kashmir will now get benefits of all
the government schemes which were not

available them prior to abrogation of the Article 370.

Under Jammu and Kashmir's special status, the state had the right to its
own decision making process for several key subjects except very few
including defence, communications and foreign afairs.

Various central laws were not applicable to the state.

"Under Right to Education, 25 per cent students from economically

weaker sections get admission. It was not applicable to J and K, but now
it will be applicable," he said.

People of Jammu and Kashmir did not get benefits under various
schemes for OBCS (other backward class), but they will get it now.
Similarly, people from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had no
political reservation but they will get it now, Javadekar said. "The home
minister gave a list of 126 laws that did not apply in Kashmir but are
now all applicable there. People are getting benefit out of it and
therefore they are happy. All the central schemes are now operational
in the Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh," he said.

He said that Pakistan was able to fuel separatism in the last 50-60 years
in Jammu and Kashmir because of the Article 370.

"It was due to this provision that separatism and terrorism increased.
Now both are over," he added.

The I&B minister also asserted that thereare no restrictions on the

media in the state and journalists are free to visit the

region and see the situation for themselves.

Kashmir under lockdown immediately after

Abrogation of Article 370