Whispers Forum

The constitution defines India as a ‘union of States’. What is the significance? Why not a dominion? Could it be a union of dominions or a federation of dominions? Could it be both a union of states and dominions? The question assumes great significance in the context of Art370/35A. Where was the need to adopt an extra constitutional mechanism to surreptitiously insert the definition of a dominion under Art35A without using the word? Why make the ‘territory’ of India Indian and J&K? Is territory of a sovereign nation divisible? It is precisely what the Art 35A does. It makes, in effect, J&K a dominion within the union of India, where writ of the Union of India does not automatically run, where a separate constitution, flag etc was permitted as in a dominion. Whose brain was it? India's leadership of the time can’t be credited with such brilliance: it was exclusively the British diplomatic brain deciding the most critical decision for its “commonwealth”. For 75 years they have harvested rich crops in the name of J&K. They want Art370/35A restored! In all respects, it was a conspiracy from which the people of India generally, and Sardar Patel especially, were kept uninformed by choice. It surprises many that Law colleges/universities never held any debate on such an important subject. Debates on national issues were common, the lead being taken by communists, progressives, liberals, academicians et al. A treachery executed stealthily. It was designed for some other select parts too but frustrated by Sardar Patel. Yet, something British perversity still holds! The debate in the SC is watched with keen interest but without any clue to these aspects.
M L Gupta