Why they are averse to
discussion on abrogation of article 370 ?
I
am a common man and not an expert on constitutional matters. However, I know
one thing that just discussion or debate on abrogation of article 370 will not
automatically remove the provision from our constitution. Then why Mr. Omar
Abdullah is so much angry that he went to the extent of threatening that
Kashmir would not be a part of India if article 370 is abrogated. It is
unfortunate that a person of the stature of CM of a state has failed to develop
scientific temper which is one of the duties entailed upon us by article 51A(h)
of our constitution. I would like to draw attention of people like Omar
Abdullah to what Pandit Nehru had to say on development of scientific temper.
"[What
is needed] is the scientific approach, the adventurous and yet critical temper
of science, the search for truth and new knowledge, the refusal to accept
anything without testing and trial, the capacity to change previous conclusions
in the face of new evidence, the reliance on observed fact and not on
pre-conceived theory, the hard discipline of the mind—all this is necessary,
not merely for the application of science but for life itself and the solution
of its many problems." –Jawaharlal Nehru Discovery of India.
I referred to the manifesto of BJP to check exactly what it says on
article 370. In its manifesto, BJP reiterates its stand on the Article 370, and
will discuss this with all stakeholders and remains committed to the abrogation
of this article. Just party’s commitment to abrogation will not automatically result in abrogation. Abrogation will come after a process and the
first step of that process is debate. Then why such a strong dislike to debate
over the issue ? Scientific temper involves
application of logic. Discussion, argument and analysis are the vital parts of
scientific temper. See the important ingredients of scientific approach described
by J. Nehru. “the capacity to change previous conclusions in the face of new
evidence, the reliance on observed fact
and not on pre-conceived theory….” In my
view people like Omar Abdullah lacks this temperament and so they fear that if
this constitutional provision is reviewed in context of development of Kashmir
in comparison to other states then it will be established beyond doubt that the
provision has done more damage to Kashmir than benefit the state. And they know
that such a conclusion of the discussion will lead to abrogation of the
provision which was temporary. So to shun the discussion itself is the best
option for Mr Abdullah and people like him.
In my view there is no harm in discussing need for
abrogation or retention of article 370 in our constitution. Let the churning
take place. And let us get ready to change previous conclusion in the face of
new evidence which will emerge as a result of churning. Then whatever that
conclusion based on new facts may be !
