As the date of hearing is approaching, peaceful protests against any move to ‘abrogate’ 35 A gain momentum. These protests are unique and in no way can be described ‘anti-national’. This is the only issue in this conflict ridden state which has brought all stakeholders – mainstream as well as separatists – on a common platform under one umbrella to see Article 35A remains in force.
Exactly a year ago, protests and debates on scrapping of the Article 35 A and its impact were confined to the Kashmir valley only. But this time the issue is debated in the context of whole state – Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh – as scrapping of the law is analysed in the context of its impact on the socio-religious communities across the state. Legal analysts’ opinions galore that the state subjects in all the regions of the state will have to face consequences once their special status guaranteed under the country’s constitution by virtue of Article 35A is snatched.
It’s worth mentioning that the law governing the provision of Permanent Residents (PR) was replication of a state subject law. Maharaja Hari Singh, the then Dogra King of the state, was forced to promulgate a state subject law in 1927 following a strong campaign by Kashmiri Pandits who were opposed to the hiring of civil servants from Punjab. Since Kashmiri Pandits were dominating the Dogra administration, they being state subjects took hiring of civil servants from Punjab as an attack on their privileges. The move had affected their representation in the Dogra administration. The agitation launched by the Kashmiri Pandits ultimately led to a state subject law debarring non-residents among other things getting a government job in the state.
Notably, the movement against Article 35 A is based on the premise that “the only way to permanently end the Kashmir imbroglio is to alter the demography of J&K by settling people from outside the state, with the right to vote and acquire land.” On this basis, it’s not Kashmir alone which will lose its special status, but Jammu and Ladakh will also equally face the impact.
Kashmiris, for the past three decades have faced worst situation, when we look at human rights issues. The point is not who is killing or subjugating whom. The net result is that Kashmiris got (and are getting) killed, persecuted (still facing it) and property worth thousands of crores lost to violence. Despite having a special status under the constitution, J&K state subjects have become accustomed to third class treatment.
As far as stake of Kashmir migrant Pandit community in the backdrop of challenges to the Article 35 A is concerned, I don’t even see a bright future for them. They have already faced persecution after migrating from the valley. Once J&K loses special status, this community too will see ‘special facilities’ crafted for them as migrants, fading away.
In the words of some constitutional and legal experts. “Article 35 A is one such presidential order which has allowed the government of India to exercise its powers beyond the contours of accession – Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications alone.” This statement raises an important question: Will scrapping of the Article 35A take the state back into the pre-1954 constitutional arrangement? Let us wait and watch.
(The views are of the author & not the institution he works for)