Reading Comprehension – Test 152

Read the following passage carefully and choose the most appropriate answer to the questions out of five alternatives. <br><br> In a momentous decision, government moved Parliament yesterday to abate Article 370 of the Constitution and supersede Article 35A, thereby effectively ceasing the special status for Jammu & Kashmir. Simultaneously, Union home minister Amit Shah introduced the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill to bifurcate the state and create two separate Union territories - Jammu & Kashmir with a legislature, and Ladakh without a legislature. This means that the Constitution of India shall now apply in full force across J&K and Ladakh, and the J&K legislature will henceforth not have any discretionary powers to decide who permanent residents of the territory are or provide them with special rights with respect to employment and acquisition of property. <br><br> Abrogating Article 370 has been a long-held wish of BJP which sees the provision as a historical wrong. However, the complicated history of Kashmir and the sensitivity surrounding the matter had hitherto prevented such a move. But with the current BJP government projecting muscular nationalism and enjoying significant numerical strength in Parliament, cessation of Article 370 became more doable. Given that abrogating Article 370 was part of the BJP manifesto, on the basis of which it swept Lok Sabha polls, the government has the mandate to do this. That non-NDA parties like BSP, AAP, YSRCP, BJD and AIADMK too have come out in support of the government's move shows which way the winds are blowing. <br><br> Arguably, Article 370 had contributed to the problems in Kashmir. The state's special powers of autonomy meant in practice arrogation of power by a tiny Valley elite, which led to a feeling of not being represented among the people of Jammu and Ladakh, as well as disaffection feeding into separatist sentiment in the Valley itself. And given that Kashmir came to be a troubled state with separatist sentiments being stoked by Pakistan with the help of cross-border terrorism, this may have been the worst of both worlds. Besides, Article 370 was meant to be a temporary provision. In that sense its cessation now is congruent with historical constitutional perspective.

Which of the following is false statement regarding the passage?

Read the following passage carefully and choose the most appropriate answer to the questions out of five alternatives. <br><br> In a momentous decision, government moved Parliament yesterday to abate Article 370 of the Constitution and supersede Article 35A, thereby effectively ceasing the special status for Jammu & Kashmir. Simultaneously, Union home minister Amit Shah introduced the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill to bifurcate the state and create two separate Union territories - Jammu & Kashmir with a legislature, and Ladakh without a legislature. This means that the Constitution of India shall now apply in full force across J&K and Ladakh, and the J&K legislature will henceforth not have any discretionary powers to decide who permanent residents of the territory are or provide them with special rights with respect to employment and acquisition of property. <br><br> Abrogating Article 370 has been a long-held wish of BJP which sees the provision as a historical wrong. However, the complicated history of Kashmir and the sensitivity surrounding the matter had hitherto prevented such a move. But with the current BJP government projecting muscular nationalism and enjoying significant numerical strength in Parliament, cessation of Article 370 became more doable. Given that abrogating Article 370 was part of the BJP manifesto, on the basis of which it swept Lok Sabha polls, the government has the mandate to do this. That non-NDA parties like BSP, AAP, YSRCP, BJD and AIADMK too have come out in support of the government's move shows which way the winds are blowing. <br><br> Arguably, Article 370 had contributed to the problems in Kashmir. The state's special powers of autonomy meant in practice arrogation of power by a tiny Valley elite, which led to a feeling of not being represented among the people of Jammu and Ladakh, as well as disaffection feeding into separatist sentiment in the Valley itself. And given that Kashmir came to be a troubled state with separatist sentiments being stoked by Pakistan with the help of cross-border terrorism, this may have been the worst of both worlds. Besides, Article 370 was meant to be a temporary provision. In that sense its cessation now is congruent with historical constitutional perspective.

Why has article 370 not been abrogated before now?

Read the following passage carefully and choose the most appropriate answer to the questions out of five alternatives. <br><br> In a momentous decision, government moved Parliament yesterday to abate Article 370 of the Constitution and supersede Article 35A, thereby effectively ceasing the special status for Jammu & Kashmir. Simultaneously, Union home minister Amit Shah introduced the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill to bifurcate the state and create two separate Union territories - Jammu & Kashmir with a legislature, and Ladakh without a legislature. This means that the Constitution of India shall now apply in full force across J&K and Ladakh, and the J&K legislature will henceforth not have any discretionary powers to decide who permanent residents of the territory are or provide them with special rights with respect to employment and acquisition of property. <br><br> Abrogating Article 370 has been a long-held wish of BJP which sees the provision as a historical wrong. However, the complicated history of Kashmir and the sensitivity surrounding the matter had hitherto prevented such a move. But with the current BJP government projecting muscular nationalism and enjoying significant numerical strength in Parliament, cessation of Article 370 became more doable. Given that abrogating Article 370 was part of the BJP manifesto, on the basis of which it swept Lok Sabha polls, the government has the mandate to do this. That non-NDA parties like BSP, AAP, YSRCP, BJD and AIADMK too have come out in support of the government's move shows which way the winds are blowing. <br><br> Arguably, Article 370 had contributed to the problems in Kashmir. The state's special powers of autonomy meant in practice arrogation of power by a tiny Valley elite, which led to a feeling of not being represented among the people of Jammu and Ladakh, as well as disaffection feeding into separatist sentiment in the Valley itself. And given that Kashmir came to be a troubled state with separatist sentiments being stoked by Pakistan with the help of cross-border terrorism, this may have been the worst of both worlds. Besides, Article 370 was meant to be a temporary provision. In that sense its cessation now is congruent with historical constitutional perspective.

What is author's prospect on abrogation of article 370?