It is the remaining part of article 370 which is more important. We have got to consider whether the remaining part of article 370 is useful or not. That is, really speaking, the sum and substance of the whole thing. If we look at article 370, what is the remaining part of article 370. I would like to borrow a phrase which was used by my predecessor her here while describing Article 370 and he has described it as a sort of bridge between the Indian constitution and the affairs of Kashmir. Really speaking it is clause (b) which is more important.
It says :

“the power of Parliament to make law for the said State shall be limited to -

“(i) those matters in the Union List and the Government list which, in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the instrument of Association governing    accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State ....”

This reference to Dominion Status - Shri Vajpayee also alluded to it -described only the status of India then when accession took place; it is nothing more.

Than (ii) is more important :

“ (ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.”

This part has been very extensively made use of in the last few years. Shri Gulam Mohammad Bakshi made a reference to it.

The hon. Member said there is a separate head of State. My hon. colleague, to my right, was the first Sadar - i - Riyasat of Kashmir, and the first and the last. He himself later became Governor. So the head of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is no longer a Sadar - i - Riyasat. He is Governor. Formerly, the Chief Executive of that state was called ‘Prime Minister’, which my hon. friend, Shri Bakshi, had the privilege to be once. But there is no longer any Prime Minister there; he is Chief Minister as in any other State.

I can mention a long list of things that have been done; I do not think I should take the time of the house in detailing them and say how many Acts have been applied to the State in the last five years. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is made applicable, the entire judiciary, the entire Election Commission machinery has been made applicable; then representatives to Parliament will be elected from the State under our Act. Very basic changes are coming about.

So the role of art. 370 is a sort of bridge. Do we want to break that bridge by taking away Article 370 ? Personally, I feel one has to be rather very realistic about it. It is not a question of being sentimental about it. I understand the hon. Mover’s sentiment; I share it. When some people try to think that Kashmir has a different future from that of India, they are completely misleading themselves. I have no doubt that the destiny and the future of India and Kashmir is identical - there is no doubt about it. At the same time, let us not be unrealistic and say ‘abrogate Article 370’.