The honourable Vice President of India begins his article (Editorial page, “A considered step that opens up new vistas”, August 17) with the words, “The general perception is that a vast majority of people in the country feel that the abrogation is a welcome step” and sums it with the line, “In conclusion, it should be noted that the abrogation of Article 370 is a national issue involving our country’s safety, security, unity and equitable prosperity. It is a step in the right direction that the Indian Parliament has taken with an overwhelming majority.” Nowhere in the article have I come across a single line about the wishes, the ascertainment of those wishes, or even the need for considering the wishes of the people directly and most affected by the action — I mean the people of the Kashmir Valley. Am I missing something?
Sushil Prasad,
Hyderabad
The Constitution that India adopted in 1950 was a statement on how we will do things in the future. It is, above all, an ethical document that defines our values and guiding principles. We adopted democracy, a system where everyone’s voice is heard and decisions are made by consensus. But the recent chain of events in Jammu and Kashmir have gone against this basic principle. Democracy has been redefined as the rule of the majority, where even direct stakeholders have been sidelined. The principle that ends justify means can be found in many philosophical writings but it finds no place in the Constitution or Constitutional values. Any community is bound to be hurt by such humiliation and forced suppression. It seems the recent decisions have the potential to stoke the flames of instability in Jammu and Kashmir.
Prakash Matthew,
Thiruvananthapuram
The Vice President is right in pointing out that Article 370 was only a temporary, transitional arrangement. In the same vein, the provision of reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was also meant to be a temporary measure. But even after more than 70 years of Independence, reservations continue with evidence of misuse. Will the Vice President use his good offices and see that the government addresses this issue also?
R. Jagadeeswara Rao,
Visakhapatnam
