LIVE
PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Former CJI-Led Review Of Election Commission, "Absolute Prohibition" On...LawBeatSIR Voter Deletions: When the State Starts From SuspicionFrontline MagazineElection Commission of India: A Crisis of TrustFrontline MagazineECI Credibility Crisis: A Decade of Eroding TrustFrontline MagazineHow the Election Commission’s Revision Exercise Risks Fracturing Indian CitizenshipFrontline MagazineUP election 2027: Congress seeks up to 200 seats, Samajwadi Party unconvinced of its ally's political strengthBusiness TodayVoter Lists Row Rock UP Politics Ahead of Assembly ElectionsThe Indian AwaazPunjab 2027 polls: BJP-Akali Dal reunion buzz grows ahead of Assembly electionsIndia TodayAnti-SIR Protest Today: RTI Reveals What Happened After Two Election Commissioners Complained Against Maneesh GargBrutMLC elections: Why not all Indian states have Legislative Councils, and what they doThe Indian Express
8010003355
Main Menu

Opinion: Ambedkar’s Scepticism on Article 370 Is Only Half the Story, Column Says

shah modi 1

An opinion column has argued that the way Dr BR Ambedkar is being invoked against Article 370 tells only part of the story. While his scepticism about the provision is well documented, the writer said, his wider views on Kashmir point in a direction that today’s supporters of its abrogation may find uncomfortable.

Ambedkar’s recorded views

The column acknowledged accounts that Ambedkar declined to draft the article, leaving the task to N Gopalaswami Ayyangar, and that he disagreed with Sheikh Abdullah on its rationale. It cited Dhananjay Keer’s biography, which describes a 1953 press conference in Aurangabad where Ambedkar said it was unfair for Kashmir to expect Indian military and other support while refusing to merge with India.

But the writer pointed to Ambedkar’s statement of October 12, 1951, announcing his resignation as law minister from Jawaharlal Nehru’s cabinet. Besides the Hindu Code Bill, India’s Kashmir policy weighed heavily in that decision. In it, the column said, Ambedkar argued that partitioning Kashmir was the answer to both the Kashmir problem and the dispute with Pakistan, through a plebiscite that could see the Muslim-majority Valley choose Pakistan.

The column’s wider argument

Drawing on Ambedkar’s emphasis that the question was what is right for Kashmir rather than who is right, the writer argued that the relevant principle was the Constitution itself, and that Article 370 sets out how it may be ended, which in the writer’s view requires consulting the people of the state. The column rejected the government’s position that Parliament could stand in for the state’s absent legislature.

The writer contended that the BJP was using its large electoral mandate to override the temporary and unresolved status that Article 370 represented, and criticised both past Congress-led governments, which it said failed this test over 70 years, and the BJP, which it said had abolished the test altogether. The column ended by asking whether the people of Jammu and Kashmir would accept being absorbed in this way once the silence on Srinagar’s streets breaks.

See also: election news

Originally published on 8 August 2019. Rewritten on 9 October 2026.






Comments are Closed