What are the various positions on the issue of regional autonomy for Kashmir ? Which of these do you think are justifiable ? Give reasons for your answer.

The various positions on the issue of regional autonomy for Kashmir are as given below :

(i) There is a section of people outside of J & K that believes that the special status of the State conferred by Article 370 does not allow full integration of the State with India. This section feels that Article 370 should, therefore, be revoked and J & K should be like any other State in India.

(ii) The second section, mostly Kashmir is believe that the autonomy conferred by Article 370 is not enough.

(iii) Another section of Kashmiris has put forward following three grievances :

(a) The promise that Accession would be referred to the people of the State after the situation created by the tribal invasion was normalised has not been fulfilled. They have generated the demand for a ‘plebiscite’.

(b) It is argued that the federal status guaranteed by Article 370 has been eroded in practice. They want restoration of autonomy or ‘Greater State Autonomy’.

(c) The third grievance is that democracy which is practiced in the rest of India has not been similarly institutionalised in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

There is a prevalent belief that 370 does not allow full integration of the State with India, it should be revoked. Kashmir is an integral part of India and many free and fair elections have been conducted in the State. Thus, it should be like any other State in India. People from all over India should be allowed to settle there and have right to property.