This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 5, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 August 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It's good to gather some sources that talk specifically about this reorganization (and specifically Ladakh), because most of the contemporary sources are focused on the violence/370A issue.
체셔🐈 ( talk) 13:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Please comment and give opinion regarding upcoming big change at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Kashmir pages.- Nizil ( talk) 15:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: Please can you give examples of how the information removed here does not match the sources? Since your last removal of this material, I have read and added four new sources that verify the basic background (such as the geographical location of Jammu and Kashmir) and your reversion of this change in the space of one minute indicates you are not judging my edits in good faith. SFB 17:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The region of Jammu and Kashmir is situated at a nexus between the states of India, Pakistan and China. [1] Following the end of British rule in the region, and the subsequent Partition of India in 1947, the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, faced unrest within the majority Muslim state. [2] Hair Singh turned to India for assistance and signed the Instrument of Accession, acceding the region the to Dominion of India. This was the cause of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, [3] [4] after which both forces withdrew to the Line of Control. [5] As a result of the de facto division of the region, India passed Article 370 of the Constitution of India, which gave Jammu and Kashmir special status... [6]
References
- ^ India’s division of Jammu and Kashmir angers China. TRTWorld. Retrieved 2019-08-09.
- ^ Blakemore, Erin (2019-03-02). The Kashmir conflict: How did it start?. National Geographic. Retrieved 2019-08-09.
- ^ A brief history of the Kashmir conflict. Daily Telegraph (2001-09-24). Retrieved 2019-08-09.
- ^ Subramaniam, Arjun (2016), India's Wars: A Military History, 1947–1971, Harper Collins India, ISBN 978-9351777496. Excerpt at How the map of Jammu and Kashmir could have been significantly different today Archived 27 June 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Scroll.in
- ^ Bruce B. Campbell, Arthur David Brenner," Death squads in global perspective: murder with deniability"(2002), page 271
- ^ K. Venkataramanan (5 August 2019), "How the status of Jammu and Kashmir is being changed", The Hindu
You want to assert in Wikipedia's voice that "This was the cause of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-48
", citing a newspaper article and a book extract? What is "This" supposed to mean anyway? What did these sources say which justifies this grandiose conclusion? --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
18:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The region of Jammu and Kashmir is situated at a nexus between the states of India, Pakistan and China. [1] Following the end of British rule in the region, and the subsequent Partition of India in 1947, the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, faced unrest within the majority Muslim state. [2] Hair Singh turned to India for assistance and signed the Instrument of Accession, acceding the region the to Dominion of India. After the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, Indian and Pakistani forces withdrew to the Line of Control. [3] [4] [5] As a result of the de facto division of the region, India passed Article 370 of the Constitution of India, which gave Jammu and Kashmir special status... [6]
References
- ^ India’s division of Jammu and Kashmir angers China. TRTWorld. Retrieved 2019-08-09.
- ^ Blakemore, Erin (2019-03-02). The Kashmir conflict: How did it start?. National Geographic. Retrieved 2019-08-09.
- ^ A brief history of the Kashmir conflict. Daily Telegraph (2001-09-24). Retrieved 2019-08-09.
- ^ Subramaniam, Arjun (2016), India's Wars: A Military History, 1947–1971, Harper Collins India, ISBN 978-9351777496. Excerpt at How the map of Jammu and Kashmir could have been significantly different today Archived 27 June 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Scroll.in
- ^ Bruce B. Campbell, Arthur David Brenner," Death squads in global perspective: murder with deniability"(2002), page 271
- ^ K. Venkataramanan (5 August 2019), "How the status of Jammu and Kashmir is being changed", The Hindu
Notes
References
In his letter to Lord Mountbatten on 26 October 1947, the Maharaja wrote, "I wanted to take time to decide which Dominion I should accede... whether it is not in the best interests of both the Dominions and my State to stay independent, of course with cordial relations with both.
{{
citation}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Ok, now we have at least the sequence of events right. But these were the events of 1947-1950. They formed the right background for the Jammu and Kashmir state, which was formed in 1947. Those same events cannot be the background for the Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) that is happening in 2019! For the background for the current topic, we need to look at what has been happening in the recent past. And that quite directly points to the Kashmir insurgency, which started in 1989 and is still ongoing. The insurgency, we might say has two parts to it: one is militancy, which had its ebb and flow on occasions and the second is a persistent demand for autonomy or independence (what Indians would call "separatism"). The Hindu nationalists claim that the separatism itself arises from the separation engendered by the special status granted to Kashmir. So that should end.
But the fact is also that there has never been any kind of consensus in India that Kashmir should be granted autonomy, not even within the Congress party. In 1950, the Congress leaders were able to arm-twist the rest of their countrymen citing the dispute with Pakistan as rationale. But that was just a made-up rationale. The Kashmiris were granted autonomy simply because they asked for it, and they were entitled to it. The Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja only ceded three subjects: defence, external affairs and communications, to the Union government. The rest of the powers were up for grabs. So, they got their autonomy, but the rest of the country never liked the idea that the Kashmiris got more privileges than they themselves have. That is why now the government was able to get two-thirds votes in both the Houses of the Parliament. Even within the Congress party there were serious dissent. So, India as a nation has spoken and said 'no' to Kashmiri autonomy. (The Supreme Court might put a block on it and say that is not how things are supposed to work, but that is going to take time.)
Finally, this page is about the Reorganisation Bill, which has done two things: reduced Jammu and Kashmir to a union territory, and cut off Ladakh from the state. Both of them smack of punitive treatments: "if you don't behave yourself this is what we will do to you" kind of thing. But the fact is also that J&K has three different ethnic divisions: the Jammu Division, the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. They were stitched together by the British into a state, along with the Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which has two more divisions. It makes sense for the three parts to go three separate ways and, indeed, if Kashmir had been a normal state of India, this kind of division would have happened a long time ago. Separating the Jammu Division and the Kashmir Valley is harder, because there are some intricate issues there. But Ladakh is easier and the government went for it. The reduction to a union territory status has much less motivation as far as I can see. Perhaps it was just a way to keep control of policing, because the BJP was dissatisfied with the Kashmiri leaders in this area. The magnitude of its meaning seems to have escaped them.
So, this is the true background to the current events. You won't find it any of the international media, because they will only recycle the tired old Hindu-Muslim or India-Pakistan dichotomies and brandish the threat of nuclear war between them. But you will find some discussed in Indian media and some in scholarly sources in disparate places, but now that this has happened, we are likely to see some scholarly analyses come up and pull things together.
I don't think we are ready to cover any of this in a Background section yet, but maybe in a couple of months time. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I have added the Aftermath section which shows what happened after the enactment of tthe bill. This section is getting irresponsibly removed by some editors without proper reason. Addition of this section will provide a good incite to the bill , it's controversies and the increase in Human right violation due to lock down due to the bill. Edward Zigma ( talk) 12:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
This act amends no act of the Constitution of India and a different resolution was passed to amend article 370 and article 35a.So, whoever is editing this please don't edit this way.Again I want to make it clear This act amends no act of the Constitution of India Arjunuws ( talk) 15:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Adaptation of State Laws) Order, 2020 has enough relevance I feel to find a place in this article. A recent addition in Article 35A gives a good idea of what can be added:
The rump territory of Jammu and Kashmir continued under the old laws until 31 March 2020, while being under President's Rule. On 31 March, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh Affairs) passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Adaptaion of State Laws) Order, 2020, repealing 29 state laws and amending 109 laws of Jammu and Kashmir.
DTM ( talk) 12:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Utkarsh555, why did you move the page? DTM ( talk) 10:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TrangaBellam ( talk · contribs) 17:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
imposing of restrictions included the blocking of internet and phone servicesand
Government of India data showed that thousands of arrests were madewere widely held to be in violation of human rights. No mention in our article.
The bill caused pandemonium in the Rajya Sabha.- Why? It is obvious that they opposed the bill but why was the opposition so severe? Or, are such situations common for every bill that fails to secure a bipartisan consensus?
List of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Orders.
A number of political parties including Jammu and Kashmir Apni Party and the Jammu unit of BJP opposed the order and showed discontentment.
Among the changes were modifications to the land laws which now allowed those from other states to buy land in the UT.
These changes in domicile rules have been compared academically to reinforcing settler colonialism in the region,[137] and Patrick Wolfe's models of colonialism.DTM ( talk) 12:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
If reported by other outlets, this needs to go in.In November 2019, India’s consul-general in New York was captured on camera speaking to a private audience on the reforms executed by the Indian government in Jammu and Kashmir, explicitly citing Israeli settlements as a source of inspiration. “We already have a model in the world,” he said. “If the Israeli people can do it, we can also do it.”
Parliament, and the inside of the Lok Sabha. Please remove them; they are distracting. I would rather prefer to have a snap of the house, when the pandemonium was underway.
Even though 220 candidates were fielded by the Gupkar Alliance, some of those elected were dissatisfied post elections, accusing the government of creating a powerless body.DTM ( talk) 12:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Violence and unrest persisted in the Indian-administered Muslim majority areas.I do not like it.
endorsing the same- What does this mean? Read in light of the previous line, it seems that they were affirming C. O. 272. Which was not the case?
except the one which says that all provisions and amendments of [..]- Any reader will be surprised. If this clause was already there, how were Kashmir special? You can take help of footnotes.
TrangaBellam, DTM, where does this review stand? As far as I can tell, DTM has not addressed any of the issues that were raised back on 24 November, and if there is any more to come from TrangaBellam, it's been over two months since they posted here. Unless DTM plans to return soon to work on the issues raised, this should probably be closed in the near future. Thank you. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I have shifted this table from the article here as the references do not allow for the accurate referencing of the entire table. Once references are available it can be shifted back. DTM ( talk) 11:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Party | In favour | Against | Abstain/
Walkout | |
---|---|---|---|---|
BJP | 78 | – | – | |
INC | – | 46 | – | |
JD(U) | – | – | 6 | |
AIADMK | 11 | – | – | |
AITC | – | – | 13 | |
NCP | – | – | 4 | |
BJD | 7 | – | – | |
SP | – | 11 | – | |
TRS | 6 | – | – | |
DMK | – | 5 | – | |
Shiv Sena | 4 | – | – | |
CPI(M) | – | 5 | – | |
BSP | 4 | – | – | |
RJD | – | 5 | – | |
AAP | 3 | – | – | |
SAD | 3 | – | – | |
TDP | 2 | – | – | |
YSRCP | 2 | – | – | |
RPI(A) | 1 | – | – | |
NPF | 1 | – | – | |
LJP | 1 | – | – | |
BPF | 1 | – | – | |
AGP | 1 | – | – | |
NOM | 4 | – | – | |
IND | ||||
Total | 125 [1] | 61 [1] | 23 [2] |
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
This could be added to the article DTM ( talk) 12:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, you reverted your own . Do you still think that paragraph should go or does it just need some improvement? DTM ( talk) 03:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
DTM ( talk) 03:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Sevanti Ninan explains to ThePrint "For the foreign press, Kashmir is both a conflict zone, and disputed territory, and it covers it as such. After Kashmir’s change of status,..."[87]
@ DiplomatTesterMan and TrangaBellam:
Pakistan has also raised the issue of human rights at various fora.right below Michelle Bachelet statements. Why exactly does this need a space right below UN HR chief's statements. Also, the scroll piece gives weight to UAPA abuse and arbitrary detention and intimidation of journalists too, while the para, actually the whole article is remiss of this. I wish I had time to go through the article in detail. What I've read in serious non-NPOV. - hako9 ( talk) 01:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi DiplomatTesterMan, I think some information is missing in this article. A source says [1]:
Earlier, there was a lot of atrocities on women. If a woman from Kashmir got married to a man from Uttar Pradesh, her citizenship would be revoked. There was different citizenship for India and Kashmir,” Saini said addressing the crowd in Hindi.
I think second paragraph in "Background" section needs to be updated.
TheBirdsShedTears (
talk)
07:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Article 370 also restricted Kashmiri women from retaining their citizenship if they marry a non-native of Kashmir. With the revolution of special status, their citizenship remains unchanged. India and Kashmir had different citizenships.
TheBirdsShedTears (
talk)
08:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I have changed the quality to B. I hope someone has an issue with this. DTM ( talk) 07:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 14 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Laura21hg (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Achilles' spiel,
Romabala.
— Assignment last updated by Adirrao ( talk) 22:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 5, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 August 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It's good to gather some sources that talk specifically about this reorganization (and specifically Ladakh), because most of the contemporary sources are focused on the violence/370A issue.
체셔🐈 ( talk) 13:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Please comment and give opinion regarding upcoming big change at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Kashmir pages.- Nizil ( talk) 15:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: Please can you give examples of how the information removed here does not match the sources? Since your last removal of this material, I have read and added four new sources that verify the basic background (such as the geographical location of Jammu and Kashmir) and your reversion of this change in the space of one minute indicates you are not judging my edits in good faith. SFB 17:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The region of Jammu and Kashmir is situated at a nexus between the states of India, Pakistan and China. [1] Following the end of British rule in the region, and the subsequent Partition of India in 1947, the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, faced unrest within the majority Muslim state. [2] Hair Singh turned to India for assistance and signed the Instrument of Accession, acceding the region the to Dominion of India. This was the cause of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, [3] [4] after which both forces withdrew to the Line of Control. [5] As a result of the de facto division of the region, India passed Article 370 of the Constitution of India, which gave Jammu and Kashmir special status... [6]
References
- ^ India’s division of Jammu and Kashmir angers China. TRTWorld. Retrieved 2019-08-09.
- ^ Blakemore, Erin (2019-03-02). The Kashmir conflict: How did it start?. National Geographic. Retrieved 2019-08-09.
- ^ A brief history of the Kashmir conflict. Daily Telegraph (2001-09-24). Retrieved 2019-08-09.
- ^ Subramaniam, Arjun (2016), India's Wars: A Military History, 1947–1971, Harper Collins India, ISBN 978-9351777496. Excerpt at How the map of Jammu and Kashmir could have been significantly different today Archived 27 June 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Scroll.in
- ^ Bruce B. Campbell, Arthur David Brenner," Death squads in global perspective: murder with deniability"(2002), page 271
- ^ K. Venkataramanan (5 August 2019), "How the status of Jammu and Kashmir is being changed", The Hindu
You want to assert in Wikipedia's voice that "This was the cause of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-48
", citing a newspaper article and a book extract? What is "This" supposed to mean anyway? What did these sources say which justifies this grandiose conclusion? --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
18:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The region of Jammu and Kashmir is situated at a nexus between the states of India, Pakistan and China. [1] Following the end of British rule in the region, and the subsequent Partition of India in 1947, the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, faced unrest within the majority Muslim state. [2] Hair Singh turned to India for assistance and signed the Instrument of Accession, acceding the region the to Dominion of India. After the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, Indian and Pakistani forces withdrew to the Line of Control. [3] [4] [5] As a result of the de facto division of the region, India passed Article 370 of the Constitution of India, which gave Jammu and Kashmir special status... [6]
References
- ^ India’s division of Jammu and Kashmir angers China. TRTWorld. Retrieved 2019-08-09.
- ^ Blakemore, Erin (2019-03-02). The Kashmir conflict: How did it start?. National Geographic. Retrieved 2019-08-09.
- ^ A brief history of the Kashmir conflict. Daily Telegraph (2001-09-24). Retrieved 2019-08-09.
- ^ Subramaniam, Arjun (2016), India's Wars: A Military History, 1947–1971, Harper Collins India, ISBN 978-9351777496. Excerpt at How the map of Jammu and Kashmir could have been significantly different today Archived 27 June 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Scroll.in
- ^ Bruce B. Campbell, Arthur David Brenner," Death squads in global perspective: murder with deniability"(2002), page 271
- ^ K. Venkataramanan (5 August 2019), "How the status of Jammu and Kashmir is being changed", The Hindu
Notes
References
In his letter to Lord Mountbatten on 26 October 1947, the Maharaja wrote, "I wanted to take time to decide which Dominion I should accede... whether it is not in the best interests of both the Dominions and my State to stay independent, of course with cordial relations with both.
{{
citation}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Ok, now we have at least the sequence of events right. But these were the events of 1947-1950. They formed the right background for the Jammu and Kashmir state, which was formed in 1947. Those same events cannot be the background for the Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) that is happening in 2019! For the background for the current topic, we need to look at what has been happening in the recent past. And that quite directly points to the Kashmir insurgency, which started in 1989 and is still ongoing. The insurgency, we might say has two parts to it: one is militancy, which had its ebb and flow on occasions and the second is a persistent demand for autonomy or independence (what Indians would call "separatism"). The Hindu nationalists claim that the separatism itself arises from the separation engendered by the special status granted to Kashmir. So that should end.
But the fact is also that there has never been any kind of consensus in India that Kashmir should be granted autonomy, not even within the Congress party. In 1950, the Congress leaders were able to arm-twist the rest of their countrymen citing the dispute with Pakistan as rationale. But that was just a made-up rationale. The Kashmiris were granted autonomy simply because they asked for it, and they were entitled to it. The Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja only ceded three subjects: defence, external affairs and communications, to the Union government. The rest of the powers were up for grabs. So, they got their autonomy, but the rest of the country never liked the idea that the Kashmiris got more privileges than they themselves have. That is why now the government was able to get two-thirds votes in both the Houses of the Parliament. Even within the Congress party there were serious dissent. So, India as a nation has spoken and said 'no' to Kashmiri autonomy. (The Supreme Court might put a block on it and say that is not how things are supposed to work, but that is going to take time.)
Finally, this page is about the Reorganisation Bill, which has done two things: reduced Jammu and Kashmir to a union territory, and cut off Ladakh from the state. Both of them smack of punitive treatments: "if you don't behave yourself this is what we will do to you" kind of thing. But the fact is also that J&K has three different ethnic divisions: the Jammu Division, the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. They were stitched together by the British into a state, along with the Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which has two more divisions. It makes sense for the three parts to go three separate ways and, indeed, if Kashmir had been a normal state of India, this kind of division would have happened a long time ago. Separating the Jammu Division and the Kashmir Valley is harder, because there are some intricate issues there. But Ladakh is easier and the government went for it. The reduction to a union territory status has much less motivation as far as I can see. Perhaps it was just a way to keep control of policing, because the BJP was dissatisfied with the Kashmiri leaders in this area. The magnitude of its meaning seems to have escaped them.
So, this is the true background to the current events. You won't find it any of the international media, because they will only recycle the tired old Hindu-Muslim or India-Pakistan dichotomies and brandish the threat of nuclear war between them. But you will find some discussed in Indian media and some in scholarly sources in disparate places, but now that this has happened, we are likely to see some scholarly analyses come up and pull things together.
I don't think we are ready to cover any of this in a Background section yet, but maybe in a couple of months time. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I have added the Aftermath section which shows what happened after the enactment of tthe bill. This section is getting irresponsibly removed by some editors without proper reason. Addition of this section will provide a good incite to the bill , it's controversies and the increase in Human right violation due to lock down due to the bill. Edward Zigma ( talk) 12:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
This act amends no act of the Constitution of India and a different resolution was passed to amend article 370 and article 35a.So, whoever is editing this please don't edit this way.Again I want to make it clear This act amends no act of the Constitution of India Arjunuws ( talk) 15:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Adaptation of State Laws) Order, 2020 has enough relevance I feel to find a place in this article. A recent addition in Article 35A gives a good idea of what can be added:
The rump territory of Jammu and Kashmir continued under the old laws until 31 March 2020, while being under President's Rule. On 31 March, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh Affairs) passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Adaptaion of State Laws) Order, 2020, repealing 29 state laws and amending 109 laws of Jammu and Kashmir.
DTM ( talk) 12:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Utkarsh555, why did you move the page? DTM ( talk) 10:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TrangaBellam ( talk · contribs) 17:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
imposing of restrictions included the blocking of internet and phone servicesand
Government of India data showed that thousands of arrests were madewere widely held to be in violation of human rights. No mention in our article.
The bill caused pandemonium in the Rajya Sabha.- Why? It is obvious that they opposed the bill but why was the opposition so severe? Or, are such situations common for every bill that fails to secure a bipartisan consensus?
List of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Orders.
A number of political parties including Jammu and Kashmir Apni Party and the Jammu unit of BJP opposed the order and showed discontentment.
Among the changes were modifications to the land laws which now allowed those from other states to buy land in the UT.
These changes in domicile rules have been compared academically to reinforcing settler colonialism in the region,[137] and Patrick Wolfe's models of colonialism.DTM ( talk) 12:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
If reported by other outlets, this needs to go in.In November 2019, India’s consul-general in New York was captured on camera speaking to a private audience on the reforms executed by the Indian government in Jammu and Kashmir, explicitly citing Israeli settlements as a source of inspiration. “We already have a model in the world,” he said. “If the Israeli people can do it, we can also do it.”
Parliament, and the inside of the Lok Sabha. Please remove them; they are distracting. I would rather prefer to have a snap of the house, when the pandemonium was underway.
Even though 220 candidates were fielded by the Gupkar Alliance, some of those elected were dissatisfied post elections, accusing the government of creating a powerless body.DTM ( talk) 12:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Violence and unrest persisted in the Indian-administered Muslim majority areas.I do not like it.
endorsing the same- What does this mean? Read in light of the previous line, it seems that they were affirming C. O. 272. Which was not the case?
except the one which says that all provisions and amendments of [..]- Any reader will be surprised. If this clause was already there, how were Kashmir special? You can take help of footnotes.
TrangaBellam, DTM, where does this review stand? As far as I can tell, DTM has not addressed any of the issues that were raised back on 24 November, and if there is any more to come from TrangaBellam, it's been over two months since they posted here. Unless DTM plans to return soon to work on the issues raised, this should probably be closed in the near future. Thank you. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I have shifted this table from the article here as the references do not allow for the accurate referencing of the entire table. Once references are available it can be shifted back. DTM ( talk) 11:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Party | In favour | Against | Abstain/
Walkout | |
---|---|---|---|---|
BJP | 78 | – | – | |
INC | – | 46 | – | |
JD(U) | – | – | 6 | |
AIADMK | 11 | – | – | |
AITC | – | – | 13 | |
NCP | – | – | 4 | |
BJD | 7 | – | – | |
SP | – | 11 | – | |
TRS | 6 | – | – | |
DMK | – | 5 | – | |
Shiv Sena | 4 | – | – | |
CPI(M) | – | 5 | – | |
BSP | 4 | – | – | |
RJD | – | 5 | – | |
AAP | 3 | – | – | |
SAD | 3 | – | – | |
TDP | 2 | – | – | |
YSRCP | 2 | – | – | |
RPI(A) | 1 | – | – | |
NPF | 1 | – | – | |
LJP | 1 | – | – | |
BPF | 1 | – | – | |
AGP | 1 | – | – | |
NOM | 4 | – | – | |
IND | ||||
Total | 125 [1] | 61 [1] | 23 [2] |
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
This could be added to the article DTM ( talk) 12:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, you reverted your own . Do you still think that paragraph should go or does it just need some improvement? DTM ( talk) 03:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
DTM ( talk) 03:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Sevanti Ninan explains to ThePrint "For the foreign press, Kashmir is both a conflict zone, and disputed territory, and it covers it as such. After Kashmir’s change of status,..."[87]
@ DiplomatTesterMan and TrangaBellam:
Pakistan has also raised the issue of human rights at various fora.right below Michelle Bachelet statements. Why exactly does this need a space right below UN HR chief's statements. Also, the scroll piece gives weight to UAPA abuse and arbitrary detention and intimidation of journalists too, while the para, actually the whole article is remiss of this. I wish I had time to go through the article in detail. What I've read in serious non-NPOV. - hako9 ( talk) 01:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi DiplomatTesterMan, I think some information is missing in this article. A source says [1]:
Earlier, there was a lot of atrocities on women. If a woman from Kashmir got married to a man from Uttar Pradesh, her citizenship would be revoked. There was different citizenship for India and Kashmir,” Saini said addressing the crowd in Hindi.
I think second paragraph in "Background" section needs to be updated.
TheBirdsShedTears (
talk)
07:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Article 370 also restricted Kashmiri women from retaining their citizenship if they marry a non-native of Kashmir. With the revolution of special status, their citizenship remains unchanged. India and Kashmir had different citizenships.
TheBirdsShedTears (
talk)
08:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I have changed the quality to B. I hope someone has an issue with this. DTM ( talk) 07:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 14 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Laura21hg (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Achilles' spiel,
Romabala.
— Assignment last updated by Adirrao ( talk) 22:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)