adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Impact of Divisive Politics on Kashmir – JURIST

Published

 on


JURIST Guest Columnists Shreya Devgan, a student at Symbosis Law School, Pune, India, discusses recent political developments in Kashmir…

I believe in Amartya Sen’s idea of identity being a composition of multiple affiliations: nationality, language, religion, profession, neighborhood, social commitments, and other connections. I see myself belonging to a lot of groups by virtue of my affiliations: I am a Punjabi from West Punjab (Pakistan) with roots in Kashmir. I strongly admire the cultures of Gujarat and Kerala. I am a feminist. I am a victim of capitalism who believes in socialism. I connect with left or center-left political parties. I believe in Sufism. I am a law student. I don’t like music. I love dark chocolates. I believe that the success of civilization lies in peaceful co-existence. After having written all that, I still think these attributes don’t define my identity. I don’t belong to just one group over others and I might belong to more groups than already mentioned above. Central to my dignity and my harmonized existence with others is the exercise of choice with regard to my affiliations. This right to exercise choice and reasoning relating to one’s affiliations comes with the liberty intrinsic in all human beings. Resentment and even violence arise when we disrespect the inevitability of our plural identities when we adopt the solitarist approach of identity as is advocated by radical political leaders while they capitalize on divisive agenda so they can feed off our insecurities and gain votes. Our thoughts and actions have been to the likes of these leaders. The solution to such differences in the society also lies in ensuring that state action does not stifle aspects of our identity that can lead to insecurities and resentment (the recent domicile laws for Kashmir). 

Solitarist approach to identity is an approach in which human beings are seen as members of exactly one group defined by their native civilization or religion. This approach disregards the liberty we exercise in determining our social connections, economic and cultural pursuits, and our political status which is directly manifested in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations as the right to self-determination. The diabolical exercise of power in Kashmir does not let the “self” develop which is detrimental to the sense of individuality, cultural diversity, and cooperative action within a community. Mill’s idea of liberty does not define “harm” but it insists that only those actions that are perceived to occasion hurt to an individual apart from the actor can be made the subject of coercion by the society. However, in the name of maintaining security and curbing terrorism, the internet clampdown in Kashmir spanned for over 6 months after the revocation of Article 370 which was the longest restriction on Internet imposed by a democracy worldwide over and it led to the loss of 500,000 jobs and 2.4 billion dollars according to Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Supreme Court of India in January 2020 held access to the internet a fundamental right (Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 19 (1) (g)) in consonance with the UN recommendation but in response to a petition filed by the Foundation for Media Professionals in the Supreme Court seeking restoration of 4G internet services, the government responded saying that access to the internet is not a fundamental right in itself and is only an enabler of the fundamental right. 

Section 4 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1950 allows even a non-commissioned officer to issue orders to their subordinates to shoot/kill someone the officer perceives as an interruption to the maintenance of public order. In recent times, public order has also been used to justify mosque closure restrictions imposed on Dargah Hazratbal, Khwaja Naqashband Sahab shrine, and Charar-i-Sharief. It was only a few months back on December 20 that Friday prayers were offered at Jama Masjid, Srinagar after a gap of 19 weeks. This wasn’t simply a violation of the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion under Article 25, but was also an inhumane act. Public order is an order that is characterized by the peaceful, rational, respectful, and orderly behavior of the people in a public place. However, it is extremely difficult for me to accept as public order an order imposed against the will of the people and at the cost of their fundamental rights. 

The history of elections in Kashmir tells a similar tale of manipulation of the voices of Kashmir, from letting only limited legislative assembly seats to be contested, to not even allowing opposition parties to file nominations at all; ensuring democracy and building Indian nationalism seemed as incompatible goals. In the 1987 elections, the local political expression embodied by the Muslim United Front was suppressed, it lost even after it had secured a majority of votes and the leaders were imprisoned as “anti-nationals” by the new government. This was the determining factor that went on to shape the steps people adopted to pursue their political will as the ballot had clearly betrayed them, a practice as democratic as an election was vitiated by malfeasance and fraud. 

The Home Minister Amit Shah very conveniently justified abrogation of Article 370, however, the argument that Article 370 is a temporary provision is not tenable as Clause 7 of the Instrument of Accession clearly lays out that the Instrument does not serve as a commitment for acceptance of the Indian constitution in the future. It might be debated that this decision is not in violation of Article 370 (3) as an amendment was made to Article 367 and not to Article 370 but we know how it is just another way of saying that Article 370 was indirectly amended. The power of the President was justified using Article 370 (1) through which Article 370 (3) was amended by adding sub-clause (4) to Article 367 (that lays down guidelines for interpretation of the Constitution) in order to replace “Constituent Assembly of the State” referred to in clause (2) of Article 370 as “Legislative Assembly of the State”. Moreover, justifying the abrogation by proving support of the Governor of J&K as a replacement to the concurrence of the state of J&K is futile as Governor is a representative of the Central Government and Centre cannot take its own permission to abrogate Article 370.

Military initiatives in Kashmir are characterized by: enforced disappearances, rapes (Kunan-Pashpora rape), killings of protestors and civilians, use of tear gas as a crowd control mechanism, and pellet gun injuries borne by youth and children. Military initiatives implemented without adequate measures to protect civilians from violence, without supplying sufficient basics of life such as food, water, electricity, medicine, communication, and internet services are not counter-productive merely for creating further hostilities within people but can at best be called inhumane. I continue to believe that it is only right to focus on improving the lives of the people instead of flaunting vigor of the state/ robustness of the army in Kashmir because the latter allows even the most peace-loving people to perceive violence as justified on grounds of self-preservation. An army can fight an army but an army cannot fight the masses. The solution lies in letting go of the vitriolic and solitarist approach we use for the Kashmiris, systemic violence as a result of resentment should not be challenged militarily but be addressed by democratic processes like elections, protests, online and offline discussions, unrestricted discourse focusing on civil paths to peace using the machinery of the judiciary, civil society, and media. We should be prepared to face the hostilities resulting from their life long struggle with oppression. 

Shreya Devgan is a law student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune, India.

Suggested citation: Shreya Devgan, Impact of Divisive Politics on Kashmir, JURIST – Student Commentary, May 28, 2020, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/05/shreya-devgan-divisive-politics-kashmir/.


This article was prepared for publication by Brianna Bell, a JURIST Staff Editor. Please direct any questions or comments to her at commentary@jurist.org


Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST’s editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Politics

Trump is consistently inconsistent on abortion and reproductive rights

Published

 on

 

CHICAGO (AP) — Donald Trump has had a tough time finding a consistent message to questions about abortion and reproductive rights.

The former president has constantly shifted his stances or offered vague, contradictory and at times nonsensical answers to questions on an issue that has become a major vulnerability for Republicans in this year’s election. Trump has been trying to win over voters, especially women, skeptical about his views, especially after he nominated three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the nationwide right to abortion two years ago.

The latest example came this week when the Republican presidential nominee said some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

“It’s going to be redone,” he said during a Fox News town hall that aired Wednesday. “They’re going to, you’re going to, you end up with a vote of the people. They’re too tough, too tough. And those are going to be redone because already there’s a movement in those states.”

Trump did not specify if he meant he would take some kind of action if he wins in November, and he did not say which states or laws he was talking about. He did not elaborate on what he meant by “redone.”

He also seemed to be contradicting his own stand when referencing the strict abortion bans passed in Republican-controlled states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Trump recently said he would vote against a constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot that is aimed at overturning the state’s six-week abortion ban. That decision came after he had criticized the law as too harsh.

Trump has shifted between boasting about nominating the justices who helped strike down federal protections for abortion and trying to appear more neutral. It’s been an attempt to thread the divide between his base of anti-abortion supporters and the majority of Americans who support abortion rights.

About 6 in 10 Americans think their state should generally allow a person to obtain a legal abortion if they don’t want to be pregnant for any reason, according to a July poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Voters in seven states, including some conservative ones, have either protected abortion rights or defeated attempts to restrict them in statewide votes over the past two years.

Trump also has been repeating the narrative that he returned the question of abortion rights to states, even though voters do not have a direct say on that or any other issue in about half the states. This is particularly true for those living in the South, where Republican-controlled legislatures, many of which have been gerrymandered to give the GOP disproportionate power, have enacted some of the strictest abortion bans since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Currently, 13 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while four more ban it after six weeks — before many women know they’re pregnant.

Meanwhile, anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies in state governments are using an array of strategies to counter proposed ballot initiatives in at least eight states this year.

Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s fluctuating stances on reproductive rights.

Flip-flopping on Florida

On Tuesday, Trump claimed some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

But in August, Trump said he would vote against a state ballot measure that is attempting to repeal the six-week abortion ban passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

That came a day after he seemed to indicate he would vote in favor of the measure. Trump previously called Florida’s six-week ban a “terrible mistake” and too extreme. In an April Time magazine interview, Trump repeated that he “thought six weeks is too severe.”

Trump on vetoing a national ban

Trump’s latest flip-flopping has involved his views on a national abortion ban.

During the Oct. 1 vice presidential debate, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that he would veto a national abortion ban: “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it.”

This came just weeks after Trump repeatedly declined to say during the presidential debate with Democrat Kamala Harris whether he would veto a national abortion ban if he were elected.

Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, said in an interview with NBC News before the presidential debate that Trump would veto a ban. In response to debate moderators prompting him about Vance’s statement, Trump said: “I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness. And I don’t mind if he has a certain view, but I don’t think he was speaking for me.”

‘Pro-choice’ to 15-week ban

Trump’s shifting abortion policy stances began when the former reality TV star and developer started flirting with running for office.

He once called himself “very pro-choice.” But before becoming president, Trump said he “would indeed support a ban,” according to his book “The America We Deserve,” which was published in 2000.

In his first year as president, he said he was “pro-life with exceptions” but also said “there has to be some form of punishment” for women seeking abortions — a position he quickly reversed.

At the 2018 annual March for Life, Trump voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

More recently, Trump suggested in March that he might support a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks before announcing that he instead would leave the matter to the states.

Views on abortion pills, prosecuting women

In the Time interview, Trump said it should be left up to the states to decide whether to prosecute women for abortions or to monitor women’s pregnancies.

“The states are going to make that decision,” Trump said. “The states are going to have to be comfortable or uncomfortable, not me.”

Democrats have seized on the comments he made in 2016, saying “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions.

Trump also declined to comment on access to the abortion pill mifepristone, claiming that he has “pretty strong views” on the matter. He said he would make a statement on the issue, but it never came.

Trump responded similarly when asked about his views on the Comstock Act, a 19th century law that has been revived by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the mailing of mifepristone.

IVF and contraception

In May, Trump said during an interview with a Pittsburgh television station that he was open to supporting regulations on contraception and that his campaign would release a policy on the issue “very shortly.” He later said his comments were misinterpreted.

In the KDKA interview, Trump was asked, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?”

“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly,” Trump responded.

Trump has not since released a policy statement on contraception.

Trump also has offered contradictory statements on in vitro fertilization.

During the Fox News town hall, which was taped Tuesday, Trump declared that he is “the father of IVF,” despite acknowledging during his answer that he needed an explanation of IVF in February after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law.

Trump said he instructed Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., to “explain IVF very quickly” to him in the aftermath of the ruling.

As concerns over access to fertility treatments rose, Trump pledged to promote IVF by requiring health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for it. Such a move would be at odds with the actions of much of his own party.

Even as the Republican Party has tried to create a national narrative that it is receptive to IVF, these messaging efforts have been undercut by GOP state lawmakers, Republican-dominated courts and anti-abortion leaders within the party’s ranks, as well as opposition to legislative attempts to protect IVF access.

___

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan Party’s Scott Moe, NDP’s Carla Beck react to debate |

Published

 on

 

Saskatchewan‘s two main political party leaders faced off in the only televised debate in the lead up to the provincial election on Oct. 28. Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe and NDP Leader Carla Beck say voters got a chance to see their platforms. (Oct. 17, 2024)

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan political leaders back on campaign trail after election debate

Published

 on

 

REGINA – Saskatchewan‘s main political leaders are back on the campaign trail today after hammering each other in a televised debate.

Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe is set to make an announcement in Moose Jaw.

Saskatchewan NDP Leader Carla Beck is to make stops in Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert.

During Wednesday night’s debate, Beck emphasized her plan to make life more affordable and said people deserve better than an out-of-touch Saskatchewan Party government.

Moe said his party wants to lower taxes and put money back into people’s pockets.

Election day is Oct. 28.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending