If one were to see the deed of ascension by Maharaj Hari Singh (ref http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/instrument_of_accession.html ) read with "the Government of India Act 1935 (repealed 1998)" AND "indian independence act 1947" and read article 370 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370 ) read with the constitution of J&K ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir ) would someone care to explain a couple of points:
1. The deed of ascension draws its validity from two acts - the act of 1935 and 1947 cited above - the 1935 act was repealed without any reference to continuity of any agreement that may have validity on that day of repealing
2. The deed was signed with the King wanting to retain his freedom on local issues while he was more than happy to hand over the defence of the realm etc etc to the Government of India as per the deed
3. When the king died Or before that when the act that abolished monarchy in India ALSO called the constitution of India was enacted WHAT happened to the status of the personal rights in the deed of ascension of JandK in favour of the erstwhile King?
4. The architect of our constitution Mr Ambedkar was against the inclusion of Article 370 as this proposal, would be a treacherous thing against the interests of India and he, as the Law Minister of India, will never do it.
5. On the 17th of November 1956, the constituent assembly of JandK passed the constitution of JandK where clause 3 and 4 ratify and confirm the ascension and also confirm the territory of JandK- hence the demand of Pakistan (why the UN security council is even playing ball only they will now) to have a plebiscite is at best laughable.
Keeping all the above in mind my question is:
1. Whats the validity of the personal rights retained by the king in the deed of ascension when the king was no longer a king after 1950? - Dont these rights automatically cease?
note: the issues of ascension is a one time act BUT the rights of the king are a continuing right which was surreptitiously and to quote Ambedkar "treacherously" worked into the Indian constitution by Nehru for playing vote bank politics?
Now for some legal trivia on article 370:(ref indiatoday.in article)
1. According to the Constitution of India, Article 370 provides temporary provisions to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, granting it special autonomy.
2. The article says that the provisions of Article 238, which was omitted from the Constitution in 1956 when Indian states were reorganised, shall not apply to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
3. Dr BR Ambedkar, the principal drafter of the Indian Constitution, had refused to draft Article 370.
4. In 1949, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had directed Kashmiri leader Sheikh Abdullah to consult Ambedkar (then law minister) to prepare the draft of a suitable article to be included in the Constitution.
5. Article 370 was eventually drafted by Gopalaswami Ayyangar AND not Ambedkar
6. Ayyangar was a minister without portfolio in the first Union Cabinet of India. He was also a former Diwan to Maharajah Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir
7. Article 370 is drafted in Amendment of the Constitution section, in Part XXI, under Temporary and Transitional Provisions.
8. The original draft explained "the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja's Proclamation dated the fifth day of March, 1948."
9. On November 15, 1952, it was changed to "the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised 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."
10. Under Article 370 the Indian Parliament cannot increase or reduce the borders of the state.
Based on the above it is clear the mischief that was played by Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah to continue the special status of JandK as a kind of mini switzerland where possibly Nehru and his ilk could accumulate their ill gotten wealth? Also remember that Nehru was a signatory to the Bretton woods agreement which has left India and the world with colonial ruling institutions (with tax free status) - namely the IMF, World Bank and the IFC. (well thats another blog by itself for another day)
1. The deed of ascension draws its validity from two acts - the act of 1935 and 1947 cited above - the 1935 act was repealed without any reference to continuity of any agreement that may have validity on that day of repealing
2. The deed was signed with the King wanting to retain his freedom on local issues while he was more than happy to hand over the defence of the realm etc etc to the Government of India as per the deed
3. When the king died Or before that when the act that abolished monarchy in India ALSO called the constitution of India was enacted WHAT happened to the status of the personal rights in the deed of ascension of JandK in favour of the erstwhile King?
4. The architect of our constitution Mr Ambedkar was against the inclusion of Article 370 as this proposal, would be a treacherous thing against the interests of India and he, as the Law Minister of India, will never do it.
5. On the 17th of November 1956, the constituent assembly of JandK passed the constitution of JandK where clause 3 and 4 ratify and confirm the ascension and also confirm the territory of JandK- hence the demand of Pakistan (why the UN security council is even playing ball only they will now) to have a plebiscite is at best laughable.
Keeping all the above in mind my question is:
1. Whats the validity of the personal rights retained by the king in the deed of ascension when the king was no longer a king after 1950? - Dont these rights automatically cease?
note: the issues of ascension is a one time act BUT the rights of the king are a continuing right which was surreptitiously and to quote Ambedkar "treacherously" worked into the Indian constitution by Nehru for playing vote bank politics?
Now for some legal trivia on article 370:(ref indiatoday.in article)
1. According to the Constitution of India, Article 370 provides temporary provisions to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, granting it special autonomy.
2. The article says that the provisions of Article 238, which was omitted from the Constitution in 1956 when Indian states were reorganised, shall not apply to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
3. Dr BR Ambedkar, the principal drafter of the Indian Constitution, had refused to draft Article 370.
4. In 1949, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had directed Kashmiri leader Sheikh Abdullah to consult Ambedkar (then law minister) to prepare the draft of a suitable article to be included in the Constitution.
5. Article 370 was eventually drafted by Gopalaswami Ayyangar AND not Ambedkar
6. Ayyangar was a minister without portfolio in the first Union Cabinet of India. He was also a former Diwan to Maharajah Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir
7. Article 370 is drafted in Amendment of the Constitution section, in Part XXI, under Temporary and Transitional Provisions.
8. The original draft explained "the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja's Proclamation dated the fifth day of March, 1948."
9. On November 15, 1952, it was changed to "the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised 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."
10. Under Article 370 the Indian Parliament cannot increase or reduce the borders of the state.
Based on the above it is clear the mischief that was played by Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah to continue the special status of JandK as a kind of mini switzerland where possibly Nehru and his ilk could accumulate their ill gotten wealth? Also remember that Nehru was a signatory to the Bretton woods agreement which has left India and the world with colonial ruling institutions (with tax free status) - namely the IMF, World Bank and the IFC. (well thats another blog by itself for another day)
Posts
