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 !