Abrogation of Article 370: PM Modi's Blog Post and The Hindu's Editorial

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has penned a blog post hailing the Supreme Court of India verdict, which upheld the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35(A). According to Modi, the judgment upholding the sovereignty and integrity of India would be cherished by every Indian. PM observed that the verdict recognized the fact that abrogation of Article 370 was done with the purpose of enhancing constitutional integration.

The court also observed that Article 370 was not permanent in nature. PM Modi attributes the criticisms to the confused mind set caused by centuries of colonization, most notably economic and mental subjugation. He raised concerns over the habit of allowing duality on very basic things, which leads to confusion, rather than taking a clear position.

The PM emphasized that Jammu and Kashmir was the biggest victim of such a mindset. He indirectly accused former governments of ignoring long-term national interests by holding a confused society approach rather than making a fresh start for national integration.

PM Modi tended to address Jammu and Kashmir as the aspirations of society rather than a political issue. He remembered Dr.Syama Prasad Mookerjee who decided to quit the Nehru Cabinet as he stood against providing 370 status to Kashmir.

The PM alleged that what had happened in Jammu and Kashmir was a great betrayal—to the nation and to the people living there. He added that he wanted to “reassure” the people of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh that “our commitment to fulfilling your dreams remains unwavering.” He reiterated that his government was determined to extend the benefits of progress to the most vulnerable sections of society who, he said, had “suffered due to Article 370.” He termed the judgment a “beacon of hope” and a promise of a “better future.”

However, the Hindu was severely critical of the verdict in their editorial headline, “Ominously anti-federal.” It said the Supreme Court’s verdict “represents not merely judicial deference but a retreat from the Court’s known positions on federalism, democratic norms, and the sanctity of legal processes.”.

“The Court’s failure to give its ruling on whether the Constitution permits the reorganization of J&K into two UTs is an astounding example of judicial evasion. It is shocking that the Court chose not to adjudicate a question that arose directly from the use of Article 3 of the Constitution for the first time to downgrade a state.”

It also said the court’s upholding of carving out of Ladakh “is an invitation to the Union to consider the creation of new UTs out of parts of any state.” As a result, future governments at the center could “impose the president”s rule to carry out extraordinary actions through its own parliamentary majority that an elected government in a state may never do.”.

The Hindu was the only national daily among the big ones that appeared to be critical of the government.