Banks in India fall under RTI

In its latest issue, London-based The Economist fought India with hammer and tongs over the abolition of Article 370

As can be seen from several Western media publications, The Economist also briefly dealt with the objective assessment of the soil situation in its article "India is still trampling on civil liberties in Kashmir". The India News Network refutes the misrepresentation of facts that the British publication intentionally committed to damage India's reputation. The Decision of the Economist Modi a year ago to abolish this autonomy and split the state into two areas (Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh) administered directly by the national government should please his followers. It would always anger Kashmiris who were not consulted when the Constitution required it. India News Network First of all, Article 370 was "temporary" under Part XXI of the Indian Constitution. According to this part of the constitution, Jammu and Kashmir were granted a special autonomous status. The provisions of Article 370 were not part of the "Accession Agreement" signed by the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947. It should also be remembered that the special status for Jammu and Kashmir became a euphemism for the separation from India over the years, and separatist leaders who worked like selfish puppets of Pakistan played it to the limit. Moreover, the privileged rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir had created a sense of otherness, which in turn was exploited by Pakistan and forces that run counter to the unity and integrity of India. They fueled terrorism in the state and killed more than 70,000 people in the past 30 years. In May last year, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) registered a case against several separatist leaders, including Shabir Shah, Yasin Malik of the Jammu-Kashmir Liberation Front, Asiya Andrabi of Duktaran-e-Milat and Masarat Alam, General Secretary of the Hurriyat Conference of All Parties for "raising, receiving and raising funds to fund separatist and terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir and to enter into a major conspiracy to cause disruption in the Kashmir Valley and wage war against India". The state was in widespread chaos; Mainstream parties' credibility had hit rock bottom. In this situation the abolition of Article 370 became a necessity. It was not designed to please one section of the population or to displease another. The aim was to save the region from secessionism and empower those who felt disadvantaged under Article 370. Among the blatant and outrageous abuses of Article 370 were the denial of permanent residence status to the West Pakistani refugees, the Balmiki community, the Gorkhas, and women from the state who married outsiders. This has been achieved through retrospective legislation, sometimes in overt disregard for the law or court judgments, when a High Court judgment finding the latest illegal practice was never officially communicated by government order. The Economist Thirteen months later, most of the restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir remain in some form. India News Network It is true that some restrictions were imposed in Jammu and Kashmir after the repeal of Article 370. But now they have been lifted with 4G internet services in Ganderbal and Udhampur districts, while reducing terrorist-induced violence in Union territory has brought peace and confidence to ordinary people. For the first time in rural areas of Kashmir, community empowerment has received a boost. More than 4,000 panchayats in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir have received substantial funds to carry out the tasks entrusted to them. With the exception of a few, almost all political prisoners were released. The right to information (RTI) is fully operational in the territory of the Union. Any citizen can get information about Jammu and Kashmir by submitting an application to RTI. In addition, on September 11, the UT administration launched the Integrated Complaint Repair and Monitoring System in Jammu and Kashmir, which will serve as an effective complaint resolution mechanism. The economist To all of these difficulties, the Kashmiris add an additional concern - that an influx of migrants from the rest of India will make them a minority in their homeland. The revoked autonomy included restrictions on who could own land in the state. The government promised that the new order would preserve local residents' say in who is allowed to live between their Alpine peaks. However, new criteria have resulted in many more Indians being eligible for “certificates of residence”. Instead of allaying such fears, Mr. Modi decided to celebrate the anniversary of the lifting of Kashmiri autonomy by laying the foundation stone for a new temple to be built on the site of a destroyed mosque. India News Network It is wrong to say that the lifting of the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir will lead to an influx of migrants from different parts of India. Even the rules of residence recently announced by the Center do not facilitate easy entry into Union territory. Only those who have lived in the area for 15 years or studied there for seven years and have appeared on either the Grade 10 or Grade 12 exam can qualify for residence in Jammu and Kashmir. Children of central government officials (army, paramilitary forces, IAS and IPS), as well as employees of public sector companies and banks, central universities and others who have worked in Jammu and Kashmir for 10 years can be resident in the territory of the Union. Likewise, children of such residents of Jammu and Kashmir who live outside the region in connection with their employment or business or for other professional or professional reasons are entitled to a certificate of residence in the Union territory. It is therefore wrong to say that the abolition of Article 370 will lead to a mass influx in the region. Second, it should be known that it was the country's Supreme Court that issued a judgment in favor of the Temple of Ram in Ayodhya. Hence, it is fair to say that the laying of the foundation stone of the temple in Ayodhya was mandated by the judicial system, not the country's political system.