Discussing the territorial jurisdiction of the proposed act, it categorically states that "accordingly there should be constitutional difficulty in extending the provisions also to the whole of India, including the state of Jammu and Kashmir."
So what happened to this report? Sadly, I must confess I don't know. If anyone does, I would appreciate an update.
But what I did find was the National Security Act, promulgated in 1980, which says: "The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained."
But here's the kicker: This act "extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir."
So, despite the Law Commission officially asserting that there was no constitutional reason to exclude J&K from laws on national security, our government clearly believes otherwise.
But even that doesn't explain why we need to mollycoddle, feed and protect separatists who spew anti-India venom at every opportunity.
That doesn't explain why we grant every visiting Pakistani diplomat the right to meet these two worthies and other openly secessionist 'leaders' from Kashmir. Does Islamabad ever allow Indian diplomats in Pakistan to meet separatist leaders from Balochistan, or the Northern Areas?
Perhaps the Wikipedia page on Yasin Malik might shed an answer.'In 1994,'
it says,'Yasin Malik renounced violence after he was released from jail and henceforth, he and his organization called for a peaceful method for settlement of the Kashmir Conflict. He supports the return of Kashmiri Hindus back to the valley.'
So why was this 'peace-loving' terrorist sharing the dais with certified mongrels like Hafiz Sayeed in Pakistan?
There have been arguments made about how special laws like Article 370 are not limited to Kashmir, like this editorial
in a national daily article which argues that
"There is no sensitisation to affirmative action and no dissemination of information that, if there is Article 370 in Kashmir, there is also Article 371-A for Nagaland, 371-B for Assam, 371-C for Manipur, 371-D for Andhra Pradesh, 371-F for Sikkim, 371-G for Mizoram, 371-H for Arunachal Pradesh and 371-I for Goa. All these Articles grant special rights and privileges to these states depending on their culture, society and history."
What it does not say is that none of these other states are exempt from the Indian Penal Code, or the National Security Act, which basically allows preventive detention of people who might act "in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State."
If Kashmir is indeed an integral part of India, it should be treated as such. And if Kashmiris are Indian citizens, they should be subject to the same laws applicable to the rest of us.
Image: Leader of Defence of Pakistan Council Hafiz Saeed (L) sits with chairman of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, Yasin Malik (C) on his hunger strike against the execution of Kashmiri separatist, Mohammed Afzal Guru, in Islamabad on February 10, 2013. (AFP)
More from the author:India: 'Backward' Ho!Stories of crocs in Andamans and survival at sea10 reasons why I'll never become PM