The idea to rake up the debate of Article 35-A can only have two motives, hence two theories. One, since all the strategies to quell the uprising in J&K have proven futile, changing the demography is the only way left to put Kashmir question to an end, that too in India’s favor. Two, the incumbent government may not be intending to play with fire, by actually removing the said article. In fact, their talk about 35-A may even not be targeted to Kashmir. As per this theory, it’s simply to whip up passions in mainland India to ensure electoral dividends in the upcoming 2019 elections.
‘Theory one’ does make absolute sense. If I were asked as to what could possibly solve Kashmir for India in long term, my answer would be very succinct: ‘change the demography’. Once the Kashmiri population is successfully diluted, their sentiments too lose efficacy. And if non-Kashmiris outnumber Kashmiris, even the promised plebiscite could be held and won by India, since voting rights in any election/referendum won’t be limited to Kashmiris. This is the sole way or else there’s no way. It’s true that Kashmiris aren’t powerful enough to snatch freedom from mighty India, but it’s equally true that Delhi has realized that it may be strong enough to resist Kashmiri demand but it has also failed to do away with Kashmiri resistance. It will always have to face it. They will always have to violate rights and then face international shame. Killing a militant or a protester has only watered the sentiment.
‘Theory Two’ negates the first theory. Although it doesn’t dispute its efficiency, if implemented but it emphasizes the risk of trying to implement it, hence suggests that the goal of this debate is not even Kashmir. The BJP needs issues to win next election. And their favorite ones have always been those involving Muslims, Pakistan and Kashmir. Undoubtedly, since the Indian public opinion is ready to forget economy and jobs and get emotive over such issues in these times of post-truth, it’s quite logical for the BJP to tinker with 35-A with no intention to scrap it. They know that Pakistan, having maintained such a law in its part of Kashmir, could approach international courts like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the last thing India wants is the internationalization of Kashmir at this stage. That would be seen as a bigger failure of BJP’s foreign policy as compared to the benefits they may gain back home by abrogating it. So, the best bet for them is to take a legal path, and keep on deferring it until the elections. Once they win, they’ve got another 5 years to breathe. Call it the downside of democracy or whatever, that’s how it works though. And that’s exactly what’s been happening, hitherto.
I do not, however, think that Delhi is doing this intentionally to divert the attention of Kashmiris from Azadi to 35-A. Some opine so and say that since Kashmiris fight for an article of Indian constitution would somehow belittle Azadi aspirations. Even one of the former CMs was immature enough to say that those defending 35A want solution in Indian constitution. How bizarre and what a shallow understanding of the street opinion! This article is important to safeguard Azadi, and nothing else. It’s continuation may not necessarily mean Azadi but its abrogation certainly means end of Kashmir movement. To defend it is not an aggressive step but surely a critical measure of a defensive strategy. In fact, I wonder why are pro-India parties of Kashmir against it. It’s absolutely hypocritical for them to do so. If they have decided India to be our future, why don’t they behave like the other states do? Why to portray Kashmiris as some super-human race that they should be able to have benefits from Indian states while the otherwise shouldn’t be allowed? Why not allow investments from outside if this hurdle is done away with? If we oppose Marathas for xenophobia, why exhibit the same here? Why behave as if we are dinosaurs’ last race and we can’t be diluted? In fact, if India is our future, assimilation would end our sense of ‘being separate’. So, this article assumes significance only for those who want a promised referendum to take place. It doesn’t matter which country’s constitutional article it may be. Pakistan has a different name for it in its part of Kashmir and India has its own. In fact, this special status has not been given to us by India. This act was passed by Maharaja in 1927, and its continuation was accepted by India at the time of temporary accession and the subsequent ratification of it by the constituent assembly, and given a different name. So, raising 35-A debate is flaring up Kashmir’s Azadi emotion and they allow it at a time, when it gives them benefits in India to come to the power. That gives a little more credence to the ‘Theory two’.