Girish Sahane, a Rhodes Scholar who is making a great contribution to the Arts in India, has a very well written op-ed in Scroll India on Article 370.

Sahane read English literature at Elphinstone and Oxford. I once visited Oxford and had a tandoori meal where my host recited Ruskin's 'Salsette & Elephanta' in a hilarious 'Peter Sellers' accent before puking into the poppadams. Fortunately, the young sprig of the 'Barristocracy' who was treating my wife and myself to this 'feast of reason and flow of soul' was some very superior type of Bengali and so we were not roughed up by the Sylheti restaurant staff. Indeed, the proprietor- being able to discern that I was just a lower middle class Madrasi who gave 'tuition' to supplement an exiguous income and who had, very unwisely, brought my spouse to a bean-feast which turned rowdy- showed us every courtesy and made sure we got our train back to London.

Sahane isn't Bengali but, purely for class reasons, I hear in what follows, not mellifluous Konkan myriad-mindedness, but that mocking- actually purely Cockney note- Aubrey Menon saw this first- that underlies both Ruskin and the Mahatma.

Not reckless polysemy but a cock-eyed meta-metaphoricity is at the root of both types of misology or mishegoss.

This does mean that one can't read Ruskin in any way one likes- Proust had one method, Wilde, another, and Vivekandanda-influenced-Tolstoy-influenced Gandhi, something yet more risible and mischievously hospitable to aesthetic mererticity. 

Consider Sahane's headline-
Kashmir, the Incompleteness Theorem and the China Syndrome
For an erudite Konkan, or other Brahmin aesthetician, Kashmir signifies Abhinavagupta's notion of  dhvani and its necessary incompleteness save as a 'divyadhvani' with a type-theoretic hermeneutic such that three different orders of beings- Heaven dwellers, Terrestrials, and Hell's denizens- hear something different though Thunder's utterance is the same.

What does Godel's theorem mean to Sahane? He refers to himself as a 'lay-person' and so I think it is reasonable to suppose he is thinking of Hofstadter's deeply silly 'Godel, Escher, Bach'.  To be fair, back then, shite like 'Zen & the art of Motorcycle Maintenance' and 'The Tao of Physics' had currency. Because I went to the LSE- not Oxford- I knew that Kripke had provided a workaround for Tarski- or Godel- and that Turing had used Brouwer choice sequences to make his own 'canonical' proof. In other words, there was no big scandal here. There must always be a Type theory which- at least, after the fact- reconciles the Devil of 'P not equal to NP' with the Angel of Intuitionism or Univalent Foundations.

I may point out that Arrow, a student of Tarski, had an impossibility proof for Bergsonian Social Welfare functions. However, he retracted after learning of the Spilrajn extension theorem. Moreover, his finding was only true of deterministic aggregating mechanisms.There must be a non-deterministic mechanism which everybody would agree was the ideal SWF provided there could be agreement on what agreement means (i.e. something like Aumann agreement obtains). Interestingly, some Law Professors believe that Arrow's theorem has important implications for Jurisprudence. They are wrong. The law is not perverse save by Professorial actio libera in causa.

H.L.A Hart- descended from a Katzenellenbogen titular King of Poland- propounded the doctrine of the essential defeasibility of all Legal reasoning at around the time that Saul Kripke was giving a workaround for Tarski's- and thus Godel & Turing's- undefinability result. I personally think, this was otiose. British Jurisprudence had been clarified once and for all by Lord Coke. Law is 'artificial reason'. Its 'fictions', being protocol bound, are nevertheless highly utile. A lot of positive law involves a type of 'constructivism' based on widening the interpretation of existing terms. Thus 'free-born man' may be interpreted to mean people who were or are slaves. It may also be extended to mean women. Indeed, a Corporation- or even a Hindu God- can gain legal personality. In America you also have 'in rem' actions against things.

Sahane sees something very sinister in this procedure.
If a government can produce re-interpretations of the Constitution that state that ‘cat’ now means ‘dog’, there is no telling where this will lead India.
This has already happened and, in general, it has been a good thing. Practices  that were banned because of prejudices that prevailed at the time can become legal.

England defeated Feudalism by using legal fictions such that, for example, a big and muscular squire could pretend to be the ward of his own orphan child whose mothers were matrons of the parish passed child-bearing age! The result of this chicanery was that realty was freed of feudal duties- e.g. to support the King in battle- and arbitrary imposts. This enabled England to develop both agriculturally and commercially- as Adam Smith pointed out.

The Continent had a different tradition and this hampered its economic development. Rather than reform 'from below' carried out by lawyers and judges creatively interpreting feudal laws, there was reform 'from above' by Princes and Emperors. However, this also meant that the tree of Liberty had shallower roots on the Continent. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, however, a jurist like Carl Schmitt could gain no converts save from refugee scholars from Europe.

Sahane mentions Godel- a great mathematician but an eccentric one, whose proof of the existence of God has recently been shown, by a computer, to be wrong. I mention this because the late Voevodsky- whose original motivation was to make computer proof checking easier- has established 'univalent foundations' as a very promising and utile Research Program. We have moved beyond Godel's incompleteness and Tarski's undefinability with a vengeance. Why? Utility is what defines truth in a formal system. We now need computers to do high level proof checking and other such complex cognitive tasks. What makes a formal system useful is what defines its Tarskian primitive notions. There may be no a priori 'arm chair' reason to prefer this definition of truth but its usefulness establishes its veracity.

Legal ratocination defends its own 'right to be wrong'. It also permits the abandonment of a remedy which is ineffective or the abrogation of a right which turns out not to be justiciable. This may offend Purists or Pundits but it is what makes the Law so useful- at least for Democratic societies.

Sahane, however, has a paranoid view of the Law. He trembles with fear lest some small mistake in legal procedure might suddenly precipitate us into a nightmare 'alternative reality' where the S.S turns into the R.S.S and Hitler turns into Modi.  In this context, he invokes Godel- who, very sadly, starved to death because his paranoia had grown so extreme that he thought everyone was trying to poison him.

In his last years, Albert Einstein was fond of saying that he went to his office on the Princeton University campus only for the privilege of walking home with Kurt Gödel. Among the foremost mathematical logicians in history, Gödel is famed for his Incompleteness Theorems. One explanation of these formulations given to laypeople like myself is that they prove no system can be both complete and consistent, where completeness means all statements in the system can be proved true or false, and consistency means no statement can be both true and false.
This is not the case. A system that is type-theoretic and protocol bound may be consistent and complete. At the very least, we know Maths can have 'univalent foundations'. We don't know whether it could be expressed as an algorithm. But, we can't rule out that possibility.
In April 1948, Einstein accompanied Gödel to the hearing that would confirm him as an American citizen. Although the proceeding was a formality, Gödel made a detailed study of documents related to citizenship. When the presiding officer stated that, unlike Nazi Germany (and the annexed Austria), from which Einstein and Gödel had fled, the United States would never be a dictatorship because of the rights enshrined in its constitution, Gödel replied that he had found an inconsistency in the text that would permit a dictatorship to emerge.
The US constitution specifies procedures to amend itself. However, even if it did not do so, every Constitution can be abrogated and replaced. Constitutions do not have magical properties. If they are ignored, they are ineffective.

Gorbachev, it will be remembered, was a lawyer. He soon saw that the Constitution of the USSR was completely irrelevant. So long as the Communist Party controlled everything, the Law was just window dressing. Gorbachev did not understand that surrendering control of the Economy would lead to a 'scissors crisis' and the demise of Communism. China is determined not to repeat Gorbachev's mistake.


The citizenship process was hastily completed before Gödel defined the incompleteness of American constitutional freedoms, and we can only speculate which fatal inconsistency he had found. Most historians believe it involves Article V of the American Constitution, which deals with how the document can be amended.
The procedure laid down is notoriously difficult, with any amendment needing to be proposed by a two-thirds majority in each of the two houses of Congress and then ratified by legislatures of three-fourths of states. However, should Article V itself be successfully amended, it could in theory permit a cascade of other changes, potentially threatening civil liberties.
Sahane is ignoring the fact that the American Constitution originally supported the institution of Slavery. Civil liberties did not exist for a substantial minority of Americans. From the Thirties onward, the Judiciary- particularly the Warren Court- took more progressive positions. However, it may be that the pendulum is now swinging in the opposite direction.
The Indian Constitution, unlike that of the United States, is relatively easy to amend. One Article within it, however, has seemed impervious to any meddling, and that is Article 370. It was negotiated with the erstwhile king of Jammu & Kashmir as part of the merger of that state with India, and was like a lock with two keys: it could be changed or nullified only if both India’s Parliament and Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly approved.
This is not true. The Supreme Court has affirmed that it is a 'fundamental' part of the Constitution. However it has its basis in a Presidential Order of 1954. The President can supersede or amend any past Presidential Order just as the Supreme Court can over-rule itself. Since the time of Gulzari Lal Nanda, the Article has been understood as a 'tunnel' through which any and every change could pass through. It has been used in this manner by President Kovind. It remains to be seen what the Supreme Court will decide on this matter. It may be that they will require some further action on the part of the Government. Given the widespread support the ruling party is getting from other parties- in particular on the issue of extending affirmative action for Scheduled Castes and Tribes- it is likely that the ruling party will welcome the chance to garner yet more support on this issue.
Separate constitution
The Constituent Assembly drew up a separate constitution for the state, which was adopted in 1956 and has applied all these years along with a separate penal code. Clause 147 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution states, “… No Bill or amendment seeking to make any change in (a) this section; or… (c) the provisions of the Constitution of India as applicable, in relation to the State, shall be introduced or moved in either House of the Legislature.” 
Framing this clause was the equivalent of locking the room and breaking the second key. Once the constitution was approved, Jammu and Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly was dissolved, which meant the broken pieces of the key were chucked into the Dal Lake.
 India too had a Constituent Assembly which dissolved itself. This did not mean that the Constitution could not be amended. It could, by the Legislature which functions as a constituent assembly unless there is President's Rule.

It is not the case that any Assembly has magical powers to enforce its decisions for all time to come.

It is a settled matter of Law, since at least a 1962 Supreme Court decision, that the non-existence of the Kashmir Constituent Assembly is no bar to the efficacy of Presidential Order.
How, then, did Amit Shah abrogate the un-repealable Article 370 on Monday, August 5, 2019? What incompleteness did India’s Law Ministry find in its formulation? Instead of going at Article 370 directly, the Presidential order amended Article 367, which defines how constitutional provisions are to be interpreted. Newly inserted text redefined the terms“Government of Jammu & Kashmir”, “Sadar-i-Risayat (elected head of State)“ and “Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir”. The first two were now to be read as “Governor of J&K” and the third taken to mean “Legislative Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir”.
Since the Legislative Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir was dissolved by the Central government months ago, the governor currently stands in for it. In effect, every state-wide elected body in Jammu & Kashmir, past and present, is now to be interpreted to mean “governor of J&K”, who is, of course, a puppet of the Central government. Any change that could previously only be made with the consent of those bodies can now be achieved by the Centre through its man in Srinagar.
This is a perfectly reasonable criticism. But it is a criticism of a political, not legal, kind. In America this is covered under the doctrine of political question.

It is probable that the Government's action is dictated by concerns over the territorial integrity of the nation. This is perfectly legitimate. However, if its motive was to reap political advantage for itself, the Bench might consider it illegitimate.
The assault on democracy
For years, India’s establishment has countered the idea of Kashmir’s right to self-determination by highlighting the democratic process in the state.
This is not true. India asserts that J&K is an integral part of India. It claims the right to punish sedition by due process of law. India has never said its claim to Kashmir is conditional on any thing.

It is a different matter that India is proud of its own democratic tradition. However, India has never said that its sovereignty is conditional upon following some particular political or judicial system.
The argument is disingenuous, since nobody views elections held in India under British rule as having undermined India’s quest for complete independence.
There is no such argument. India's leaders weren't fools. They knew that it is the height of stupidity to assert that one has only conditional sovereignty. A foreign invader may claim that the condition has been violated and so India has lost sovereignty. Thus no crime of aggression is occurring. India is a 'terra nullius'. 
Nevertheless, internal democracy was the strongest argument against Kashmiri self-determination, especially given Pakistan’s relative failure in that respect.
Nonsense! Kashmir could elect separatist leaders who might engage in ethnic cleansing and also attack Indian defense installations.

The Center has repeatedly dismissed Kashmiri State Governments and also imprisoned Kashmiri leaders- e.g. Sheikh Abdullah. It has also 'fixed' elections- as happened under Rajiv Gandhi.
With a stroke of a pen, Narendra Modi and Amit Shah have destroyed that argument. By taking a series of deeply consequential decisions without a process of consultation or a vote by elected state representatives, knowing those decisions would be deeply unpopular even among Kashmiri political parties committed to the Indian republic, India’s rulers have shrugged off the cloak of democracy to reveal the naked power behind India’s control of Kashmir.
The 'cloak' was useless. Trump wants American soldiers out of Afghanistan and needs Pakistan's help to make this easier. The quid pro quo demanded by Imran Khan had to do 'mediation' on the Kashmir issue. India's action sends a strong message that it will use 'naked power' to protect the territorial integrity of the country. In the past, this 'naked power' alone has availed against India's enemies.
The move is motivated by the belief that people in one nation ought to have one law.
Nonsense! It is motivated by the desire to protect India's territorial integrity and to deal with both external and internal enemies with an iron hand. It may be- as many Kashmiris fear- that New Delhi will sponsor a demographic change in the Valley. What is certain is that non-Kashmiris already settled in the Valley can now buy property and gain Government employment.
It’s a compelling idea, no doubt, but needs to be balanced by the equally powerful sense that particular histories must be give their due if perfect equality is not to become a form of injustice. That is why we have quotas and reservations for women and for historically disadvantaged communities, which attempt to redress entrenched inequities even as they cut against the ideal of pure parity.
The Center plans to extend these quotas and reservations to J&K. That is why the BSP is supporting them.
Jammu & Kashmir was not the only state to be assigned a special form of autonomy in India’s Constitution for historical reasons. At the very least, Kashmiris, on being told that as Indian citizens they should follow Indian laws, can retort that they were never asked whether they wanted to be Indian citizens in the first place.
Similarly, an Indian- on being arrested for a crime- may retort that he never asked to be an Indian citizen. He would prefer to be an American citizen and to live in the White House.
It was the whim of a king that settled their fate, and India’s latest move reneges on promises made to that king. The only factor in the country’s favour now is sheer might, military and economic.
India annexed Sikkim. It also reneged on promises to the Princes by cancelling their privileges and Privy Purses. So what? Sensible countries change and adapt with the times. They don't believe that some 'key' was broken into pieces and thrown into Dal lake and that until that magical key is found Sauron, the Dark Wizard, must continue to rule over Middle Earth.

Sahane next mentions 'the China Syndrome'- which is about how a nuclear meltdown might cause the radioactive core to tunnel through the earth all the way to China. There was a film of this title starring Jane Fonda back in the Seventies.

God alone knows why Sahane is bringing up this matter.
The China Syndrome
All nations value territorial unity and integrity but perhaps none has privileged it for as long a period as China.
Which is why it is so successful. A country which successfully defends, or acquires, territory is signalling its capacity to also improve the lives of its citizens. That is why Nationalism is popular. A country which weeps and says 'we can't defend our borders' will also weep and say 'we can't tackle poverty or injustice'.
Where India’s self-definition takes the form of the oxymoron Unity in Diversity, China believes in Unity in Unity.
There is no 'oxymoron' involved in letting people run their own institutions using their native language. The Jan Sangh was unpopular in the South because many of us believed they would impose Hindi on us. They did not do so and thus have been accepted by us as a truly National Party.

China has a different tradition to India. But it is much more successful. It is foolish to mention China in this connection. Their policies have succeeded. They have completely crushed separatism. They have also successfully industrialized and lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.
Its integrationist philosophy was last demonstrated through the internment of hundreds of thousands of Uighurs in Xinjiang for “re-education”.
In a recent column about Kashmir, I wrote that the Modi government’s “favoured solution is obviously a demographic makeover of the kind China has conducted in Tibet, but there are high constitutional obstacles to that ambition”. I thought those hurdles would prove a sufficient deterrent, but obviously no policy is too outlandish for the people who brought us demonetisation.
Sahane is saying that he thought Modi would be too lazy and cowardly to grasp the nettle. He has done so and, as with demonetisation, will gain popular support as a result. Why? The country wants hardworking and courageous leaders. They prefer a man who takes a risk and loses to a man who never takes a risk and just keeps weeping copiously all the time.

The attempt to abrogate Article 370 is likely to meet its end in the Supreme Court, but signals how close we are to slipping into authoritarian rule.
Sahane admits that the Bench can quash this action of the Executive. This means that we are not at all close to 'slipping into authoritarian rule'. It's like saying 'we are close to slipping into the rule of sodomites who will rape us. Only the fact that they get arrested when they try any such thing is preventing us from incessant buggery.'
If a government can produce re-interpretations of the Constitution that state that “cat” now means “dog”, and pack the Supreme Court with enough compliant judges, there is no telling where it will lead us, without even the need to declare an Emergency.
If anal rapists can form a government and re-interpret the Constitution such that Article 1 reads 'India, that is Bharat, is a Union of people in a constant state of being sodomized' and if this bunch of lunatics can pack the Army and the Police and the Bureaucracy and the Courts with enough homicidal sodomites, then there is no telling where it will lead us even without the need for the insertion of anti rape devices into our anuses.'
On the ground, the government has set in motion its Tibet plan, in which Hindus from the mainland eventually overwhelm Muslim Kashmiris with their wealth, buying up all the land and settling in large numbers.
This may be an attractive proposition for India's Hindu majority. Why is Sahane advertising it?
The reaction is bound to be immediate and intense.
And as futile as that of the Khampas in Tibet or the Rezakars in Hyderabad.
There will be blood, and it has probably begun flowing already.
But it will now flow in a wholly asymmetric way.
The administration knows it, which is why it has sent tens of thousands more troops into one of the most militarised places on earth. With secessionists and mainstream parties united against the triple whammy of eliminating Articles 35A and 370 of the Constitution and bifurcating the state, there is no political space left for dialogue.
Much good that 'dialogue' did.
The bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir will create demands for similar privileges from a number of communities and the reawakening of movements like the Gorkhaland agitation.
So what? These movements are dictated by the aspirations of local people. They do not, however, have a national security dimension.
As a sidelight, changing the status of Jammu & Kashmir greatly weakens India’s claim to parts of the erstwhile princely state now controlled by Pakistan and China.
So what? These claims are purely pro-forma.
Meanwhile, the situation in Hong Kong gets worse by the day, demonstrating the limitations of the China syndrome, or the urge to integrate by force a population accustomed to autonomy.
Yet, China will prevail.
India will soon learn that lesson, and the illusion will die that revoking Article 370 and ending restrictions on land purchases by outsiders will bring peace to the riven state. Sadly, the realisation will come at a terrible price.
This is the crux of the matter. Indian analysts believe that Pakistan can't ratchet things up very much further. In any case, it is better to take the pain now and give as good as we get. There is a potential pay-off in terms of better governance and economic development for the Valley. It remains to be seen whether any such thing will materialize. If it does not, only loyalists will receive Government largesse- an outcome which India's Hindu majority might welcome. However this is a short-sighted view. The Muslims of the Valley are hardworking, enterprising and intellectually and artistically gifted. Everybody benefits if they can get ahead by their own merit and hard-work. This may cause the disintermediation of certain dynastic politicians and their corrupt and incompetent cronies. But it will greatly benefit the country as a whole.