Government of India feeding J&K since Independence. But peoples of Kashmir have not confidence in India. In my opinion abolishing of section 370 is best solution of Kashmir problem. People of Kashmir can be kept busy only with development of state and development of state is not possible with source of Kashmir.

Abolition of  section 370 is not easy. It is true a particular section of the Population in Kashmir are  against the intervention of the Government,

rambabu wrote:

Abolition of  section 370 is not easy. It is true a particular section of the Population in Kashmir are  against the intervention of the Government,

Noting is easy in Kashmir, peace is also not easy. If all politics parties of India honestly work than nothing is hard, every thing is possible.

 

anil wrote:

rambabu wrote:

Abolition of  section 370 is not easy. It is true a particular section of the Population in Kashmir are  against the intervention of the Government,

Noting is easy in Kashmir, peace is also not easy. If all politics parties of India honestly work than nothing is hard, every thing is possible.

Political parties working together on the issue of Kashmir is also not easy

 

 

A Senior member has raised a question on Martial law. By virtue of special powers vested in armed forces, there is virtually martial law in Kashmir and some other parts of country.  Incidentally, there is no mention of Martial law in Indian constitution. Our neighboring country, Pakistan had Martial law many times but this is by way of coup and unconstitutionally removing a lawful govt.  This virtually means that the elected govt. is forcibly removed from power and replaced by military junta.  In appropriate circumstances, there is provision of proclaiming emergency- external aggression, internal disturbance, financial crisis. 

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

A Senior member has raised a question on Martial law. By virtue of special powers vested in armed forces, there is virtually martial law in Kashmir and some other parts of country.  Incidentally, there is no mention of Martial law in Indian constitution. Our neighboring country, Pakistan had Martial law many times but this is by way of coup and unconstitutionally removing a lawful govt.  This virtually means that the elected govt. is forcibly removed from power and replaced by military junta.  In appropriate circumstances, there is provision of proclaiming emergency- external aggression, internal disturbance, financial crisis. 

AFSPA and Martial Law are one and the same ?. If so, before imposing Martial Law, has the Government obtained the approval of the president? I understand, without the approval of the President either Martial Law or AFSPA cannot be promulgated. Please clarify.

It is wrong to say that AFSPA and Martial Law are similar. This is highly misleading statement. AFSPA is necessary to protect the Armed Forces personnel from prosecution because they are fighting an enemy within the borders and not on the border. In doing so there can be some collateral civilian causalities. The army does not run the civilian affairs. Misuse of AFSPA is to be checked and punished. 

rambabu wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

A Senior member has raised a question on Martial law. By virtue of special powers vested in armed forces, there is virtually martial law in Kashmir and some other parts of country.  Incidentally, there is no mention of Martial law in Indian constitution. Our neighboring country, Pakistan had Martial law many times but this is by way of coup and unconstitutionally removing a lawful govt.  This virtually means that the elected govt. is forcibly removed from power and replaced by military junta.  In appropriate circumstances, there is provision of proclaiming emergency- external aggression, internal disturbance, financial crisis. 

AFSPA and Martial Law are one and the same ?. If so, before imposing Martial Law, has the Government obtained the approval of the president? I understand, without the approval of the President either Martial Law or AFSPA cannot be promulgated. Please clarify.

Martial law is rule by Military and flows from " doctrine of necessity" which was upheld by Pak Supreme CourT. AFSPA is entirely different as it just gives immunity and some limited powers to the armed forces in a disturbed area. The civil authority remains in power. 

 

One should not underestimate Pakistan. Sitting here we feel Pakistan is in turmoil and will break up. Sitting abroad many in UAE also tell me the same thing about India, with the Naxal movement, the  separatist movement in North East and Kashmir. In fact, readers may go through the Chinese assessment of India by their Institute off strategic studies which forecasts break up of India. So what is apparent is not real.

Will India breakup? Probably not, but one cannot forecast the future. I went to the Soviet Union 35 times and could never imagine the mighty soviet state will break up. It did into 18 countries. India was monolith country and yet broke in 1947 on the two nation theory. In 1971 Pakistan broke up . So one can't say what will happen 50 years hence.