Apropos your cover story How to Burn the Bridge (Jun 9), Instead of waking sleeping dogs—Article 370 and the Uniform Civil Code—the new government should try to tame other demons such as inflation and the rising crimes against women. Article 370 does give the impression that J&K is not in the national mainstream. And though its abrogation is long overdue, the nda should not make a hash of it now.
K.P. Rajan, Mumbai
Keeping things stirred up, even if it leads to bloodshed, has long been the BJP’s modus operandi.
Anwaar, Dallas
Gopalaswamy Iyengar, diwan of the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir and the principal drafter of Article 370, while inserting it in the Constitution in October 1949, argued that for a variety of reasons, Kashmir, unlike other princely states, “was not ripe for integration”. Since then, a series of presidential ordinances have drastically eroded the article anyway. Yet, to maintain the delicate balance of legal entities within the Indian Constitution, Article 370 should remain. Manipulating it won’t mean the end of Pak-based terrorism. Discretion is the better part of valour. The Sangh parivar’s jingoism is best ignored. Narendra Modi should heed Churchill’s words, “...in victory, magnanimity”.
C.V. Venugopalan, Palakkad
Much water has flown under the bridge. The times too have changed. Talking to ‘stakeholders’ is now nothing but management jargon. The new government has enough problems on its hands. Giving Article 370 priority at this point cannot be good for national health.
V.N.K. Murti, Pattambi
With assembly elections fast approaching in the states, new hot issues have to be found to fetch votes. Thus, it is always good to test waters first.
K.J. John, Baroda
Why should Article 370 not be discussed? If you are spending billions, then you have every right to determine what is best for the state.
Jatinder Chadha, Vancouver
Addressing his first campaign rally in Jammu, Modi had reiterated that the BJP wanted a discussion on Article 370 since it concerned the people of India. Some of the Kashmiri parties might think it is a bridge connecting the state to the rest of the country, but it isn’t so.
Jayanthy S. Maniam, Mumbai
Since Article 370 has only alienated the people of Kashmir rather than bridge the gap with the rest of the country, it should definitely be reviewed.
K.R. Srinivasan, Secunderabad
The BJP seems to be misreading the massive mandate people have given it. They pressed the lotus button not for Ayodhya, Article 370 or the Uniform Civil Code, but for Modi and his promise of development and governance which in turn would ensure security, education, jobs, healthcare, infrastructure and a better financial future for themselves and their children. The irresponsible comments of Modi’s ministers vindicates those who feared that Hindutva was the core agenda of the BJP. Modi must rein in the elements which seem to be taking the voters for granted. Having said that, a word for the Abdullahs as well. We are a democracy, and there is no issue, including Article 370, which cannot be debated. Jammu and Kashmir is not the property of the Abdullahs that they decide what should or should not be done with it.
M.C. Joshi, Lucknow
Your article is nothing but a feeble attempt at obfuscation to preserve a relic of the Nehruvian era. You call Article 370 the sole bridge between Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian Union, but if there is no chasm to begin with, why do we need a bridge? J&K became an integral part of India when the maharaja of Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession on Oct 25, 1947. Nor was J&K the only state that negotiated its membership with the Indian Union. When the British left, there were over 500 princely states with whom Sardar Patel negotiated as he integrated into the Indian Union. J&K was the only state whose accession negotiation Nehru kept for himself given his ancestral links and his friendship with Sheikh Abdullah.
D.L. Narayan, Vizag
