A striking feature of the whole debate over holding the Urban Local Bodies and Panchayat elections has zeroed in on the fate of the Article 35-A of the Indian Constitution. This has become a sharper issue following the boycott of polls by National Conference and, in all likelihood, the PDP, also deliberating it on the similar lines. This is a clash of constitutional provisions of the same constitution through which Jammu and Kashmir enjoys special rights and privileges and commitment to the democracy at the grassroots level.
All this was avoidable. Had the parties involved in the contest of the constitutional provision in the Supreme Court courted the reasons instead of linking it to one or the other issue. There was absolutely no need to link the fate of the Article 35 A in the Supreme Court to the holing of Panchayat and Urban local bodies polls. The nuance is that there are serious consequences in store in whatever manner the Article 35 A is decided in the Supreme Court.
Not only the Kashmiris and others who want the protection of the Article 35-A that has now been adopted as an ” Article of Faith” for them were presuming the one-sided decision, the Centre too seems to have places itself on the same pedestal, giving rise to a litany of apprehensions. The mention of the law and order situation itself says so many things.
It would be an audacity to enter into argument with the bright legal minds, who asked for the postponement of the hearing of the challenge to the Article 35 A that confers special rights and privileges to the hereditary permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir on these grounds, but it is tax payer’s right to know why this particular line has been adopted in the apex court. Last year, the argument was that the Government of India had appointed Dineshwar Sharma as an interlocutor on Jammu and Kashmir , implying that he needed time to reach out to the stakeholders in Kashmir, as if this was anyway connected to an out of the court settlement of the Article 35-A. Or, were they expecting that Sharma would work out some kind of miracle and resolve all the issues in three to six months’ time.
When the time came to ask what was progress on the dialogue front and results thereof, the leading legal luminaries changed the track and put the argument in a different gear that exhibited the preparations for the Urban Local Bodies and Panchayat elections. The apprehension was that any presumed verdict, whether in favour of the retention of the Article 35-A or scrapping of it could create law and order situation in the volatile atmosphere in the Valley or Jammu region. In that sense, why should any fault be found with the assumption of the separatists and the mainstream in Kashmir who feel that there is something more than what meets the eye. The State government or the Centre during all these years have connected the dialogue and the holding of the polls to the yet to be decided fate of the Article, this is wrong plea. Its pitfalls are becoming obvious. It has already started showing its that has stirred emotional responses in shutdowns and call for unspecific sacrifices for its protection. Even a suggestion, howsoever, minor, that the Article-35 needed to be balanced in favour of the women who marry the men from outside of the State. While such brides can retain their hereditary property, get jobs and scholarships, yet they cannot transfer that to their children or husband. The men who marry the women from outside J&K have the right to pass on their immovable property and other benefits to their children and wives. They are also entitled to jobs and scholarships. The women coming to J&K as brides can be from part of the planet. This discrepancy may not be directly connected to the provisions of the Article 35 A, but this is the article that defines children of the women marrying J&K’s permanent residents as permanent resident and entitles them to all the rights due to the citizens of the state. But the children of the women marrying outsiders are denied the same. This difference has to be reconciled or should there be another law that the women and men of J&K can marry among the permanent residents only. Is that possible? That will have to be explored. It may sound funny, but a way out has to be found to end this gender discrimination. But at the same time, it becomes very clear that the Article 35-A is not an enabler of polls of any sort nor can it be a reason for the success of the dialogue. It should instead be used as a reconciliation multiplier among the permanent residents of the State who are getting divided on the communal, regional and sub regional lines. This article should become a rallying point for the convergence toward one idea of one J&K and one people. That is the need of the hour.