1.

Abrogation of Article 370 – are we any closer to achieving peace in

Jammu & Kashmir?

Referring to Chapter 21 of the Constitution that deals with temporary,

transitional and special provisions in relation to certain states, the Centre said
the special provisions from Article 371A to Article 371J contain specific
provisions for certain states such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Assam,
Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Sikkim, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh,
Goa and Karnataka. “However, the entirety of the Constitution of India is
applicable to all of these states. On the other hand, in case of the then State of
Jammu and Kashmir, in the first instance, on the Constitution of India coming
into force, only Article 1 and Article 370 applied to that State. All other
provisions of the Constitution were to be made applicable to the then State of
Jammu and Kashmir by the President of India, with such exceptions and
modifications as considered necessary," it said.
Why Articles 370 And 35A Should Be Scrapped

the provision empowering the State with ‘special’ status has always been the
elephant in the room. Jammu & Kashmir has, along with its sensitive topography,
appears like a foreign policy issue, instead of a domestic one due to its status in
our Constitution. There exists an unnecessary chasm between citizens of Kashmir
and the rest of India. It borders on being trite, but nonetheless, sadly, must be
reiterated – Article 370 and Article 35-A must go.

Article 370 details the relationship Kashmir will share with the rest of the country;
Article 35-A grants permanent residents of Kashmir some special rights. From the
get-go, the Constitutional relationship of India with this state has been adversely
lopsided. India has already ensured the states with the Mizos and the Naga
population with constitutional safeguards(special provisions) such as protecting
their social practices India has an assortment of examples where it has performed
positive discrimination for groups (Articles 15 and 16) and as mentioned – states.

The problem, to put it succinctly, is that with Kashmir the positive discrimination
has tended to be insidious. Instead of taking a legislative route, Article 35-A was
passed through a Presidential order. It subverted the law-making powers of the
legislature, granted by the Constitution. They cannot amend the Constitution. Even
an ordinance, which was most decidedly not, has to be passed by Parliament.
The order, passed in 1954 by the President, was due to fulfilling Article 370 (1) (d).
Article 370 itself was supposed to be temporary; the first word of the Article is
temporary. It is still under Part XXI which is titled “Temporary, Transitional and
Special Provisions“.

The state of J&K itself has done phenomenally well on its indicators as an Indian
state should. It has grown by almost 7% last year, ensured a greater number of
schools per household and even health and connectivity outcomes have
outperformed expectations. A big reason is the heavy subsidisation by the Centre.
A study showed that it has received, from 2000-2016, 10% of all Central funds
despite having 1% of the population. It is an economic powerhouse waiting to be
unleashed. Article 370, very obviously, however, is still an impediment in
restricting private or global investment into the state.

If Indians (non-Kashmiris) cannot invest in land or property, how can

manufacturing firms or multinational corporations? The moves might have
provided jobs to the young people of Kashmir. It also stopped public colleges such
as medical colleges from adequately fulfilling vacancies. Professors cannot be hired
from outside the State except in extremely low quotas. These and many more
ensure that unemployment increases, which make the advent of radicalization,
more viable. Hence, Article 370, the pernicious basis of Article 35-A must go.

Article 370 itself is gender neutral, but the way permanent residents are defined in
the state constitution based on the notifications issued in April 1927 and June 1932
during the Maharaja’s rule — seems biased against women. The 1927 notification
included an explanatory note said “The wife or a widow of the state subject … shall
acquire the status of her husband as state subject of the same class as her
husband, so long as she resides in the state and does not leave the state for
permanent residence outside the state.” This was widely interpreted as also
suggesting that a woman from Jammu and Kashmir who marries outside the state
would lose her status as a state subject.

The only way to repeal Article 370 would be by the President through a notification
but not without the concurrence of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and
Kashmir. The Constituent Assembly, of course, disbanded in 1956 and almost all
members are presumably dead. Before dissolution, the Constituent Assembly
neither recommended abolishing Article 370 neither, did they advocate for it to be
permanent. As for Article 370, 45 Presidential Orders have been used to extend
components of India’s Constitution into J&K. Almost all Union List subjects are
applicable, most of the Concurrent List ones, a handful of Schedules and 260 of
395 Articles. Article 370, via orders, has been modified so many times, it can be
expelled from the Constitution as well without taking ‘concurrence’ of the now-
defunct Constituent Assembly. The Constitution has been recognised as a living
document, after all.

Article 35A must go

Valmikis (Dalits) were brought to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) in 1957 by the State
Government. From that time, the present and future generations were compelled
to become sweeper and that too only in the Municipality of Jammu. Valmikies
were not given the Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) and they were eligible
only for the post of 'sweeper'. This left them with only one option that is to take
the broom and clear the dirty streets of Jammu. The youth of this community in
J&K might have been qualified to become teachers, lawyers, doctors, engineers but
they were eligible for the post of sweeper only. There were West Pakistan
Refugees and Gorkhas, and the PRC was not conferred on them, as a result, they
were not entitled to property rights; employment in state government;
participation in Panchayat, municipalities and legislative assembly elections;
admission to government-run technical education institutions; scholarships and
other social benefits, voting rights, right to join central services. Women in J&K
were not allowed to choose her life partner outside the state. All of this was
happening due to the implementation of Article 35A in J&K. This article is
unconstitutional, discriminatory and biased.

What is Article 35A?

Article 35A enables the J&K Assembly to define ‘permanent residents’ and allows it
to give PRC to people in J&K. Though the PRC holders are entitled to various rights
and privileges, which are denied to the non-PRC persons but this provision also
gives legal sanction to discriminate even among the PRC holders. Article 35A is that
part of the Constitution of India which was added by the President of India without
getting it discussed and approved by the Parliament of India. It is against the spirit
of the Constitution of India. This provision discriminates on the basis of caste, class,
gender, and place of origin in clear contravention to the fundamental rights
enshrined in the constitution of our country.
IMPLICATIONS of ARTICLE 35A?

No one, except those defined as ‘permanent residents’ with PRC are entitled to
property rights; employment in state government; participation in Panchayat,
municipalities, and legislative assembly elections; admission to government-run
technical education institutions; scholarships and other social benefits, voting
rights, right to join central services. Thus, it discriminates against the rest of the
Indian citizens. This Article has denied all the above-mentioned rights to various
communities, like the Scheduled Caste Valmikies from Punjab, West Pakistan
Refugees, Gorkhas, Women living in Jammu-Kashmir for the past six decades.

Since the J&K borders two hostile nations and also due to consistent terrorist
activities in the state, the largest number of soldiers attained martyrdom in J&K.

Of the 21 Param Veer Chakras awarded to soldiers fighting at the borders, 16 were
awarded for fighting at Jammu Kashmir borders, and of these 15 soldiers were
from outside the state. However, it is ironical that those who lay their lives to
protect the land are not given even a small piece of land, because they are
outsiders.

Detrimental for the PRC holder also:

No industrialists invest here as they cannot own the land for his factory, which, if
allowed, could provide employment to the locals.

With ulterior motive to keep the people belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC) away
from Political Power, it has been decided that the seats in the legislature of the
state shall not be increased for them till the year 2031, denying them
representation in the legislature as per the ratio of their population.

Tribal comprise nearly 15% of the State’s population, but political reservations for
Scheduled Tribes are non-existent and they are denied social justice and equitable
distribution of opportunities.

People from outside J&K are denied right to take up any govt. job, resulting in a
serious dearth of qualified experts in professional educational institutions,
including medical and engineering colleges. This has a detrimental effect on the
quality of professional education and the local students are suffering.
Qualified doctors, specialists and researchers from other states do not work in J&K.
There is an acute shortage of doctors in super specialty hospitals and professors in
the Medical Colleges.

It is important to debate the constitutional validity of Article 35A, which was

inserted in the constitution, without even discussing and approving it from the
parliament. Modern day India certainly cannot allow such grievous forgery of the
past to continue to darken the future of its citizens. Together we can ensure
equality, liberty, and justice for the sufferers. This regressive, discriminatory,
biased and unjust law must be repealed.

The myth of outsiders’ invasion in J&K

J&K, a constitutionally privileged state in India, does exactly what the most anti-
women countries do under its prevailing permanent residency laws. From 1927,
when the Dogra autocratic ruler Hari Singh introduced the law, women of J&K
were disqualified as ‘permanent residents’ if they married non-permanent
residents. The archaic law was overruled in 2002 by the J&K High Court. But, in
2019, the women of the state still can’t pass on their state subject rights to their
children and non-permanent resident spouses.

Hari Singh had brought in the law as an economic protectionist measure against
the influx of populations from neighbouring Punjab that was under British colonial
rule. The law was inserted as Article 35A in the Indian Constitution through a
presidential order in 1954, eight years after J&K acceded to India on October 26,
1947. It was based on the terms on which J&K’s popular leader Sheikh Abdullah
negotiated Article 370 with New Delhi in 1949.

J&K’s Constitution, which came into existence in 1956, retained the Dogra
autocracy’s law prohibiting non-permanent residents from ‘permanent settlement’
in the state, acquiring immovable property, getting government jobs, scholarships
and aid. The law even barred refugees from then-West Pakistan living in J&K since
Partition from acquiring state subject rights.

In 2002, when the J&K High Court favoured limited ‘gender neutrality’, it evoked
brazen patriarchal reactions from regional political parties. Both National
Conference (NC) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), ironically headed by a
woman, tried their best to subvert the verdict by passing a new legislation to
disqualify the women who married ‘outsiders’.
Kashmir’s political leadership has been arguing that J&K is not the only state in
India with prohibition on ‘outsiders’ to settle, and, therefore, Article 35A in their
state should be left alone. This is true. But such regressive laws in India exist only
because of xenophobic tendencies and irrational fears about ‘an invasion’ (both
sociopolitical and economic) of ‘outsiders’, which holds no basis in reality. The
common refrain today is that the influx of migrants from ‘Hindu’ India will unleash
demographic change and dilute the religious identity of Muslim-majority Kashmir
valley. The fact is, neither Hindus of Jammu nor Buddhists of Leh, despite being
state subjects of J&K, have made any attempts to settle in the Valley in the last 72
years. On the other hand, while Kashmir insurgency evicted its entire indigenous
minority, Kashmiri Pandits, Muslims have also moved out in massive numbers and
settled in not only Hindu-dominated Jammu, but also in ‘Hindu-dominated’ cities
like Kochi, Kolkata and Jaipur.

Also, in the overwhelming majority of states where there are no prohibitions on

the purchase of land by ‘outsiders’, the basic demographics and cultural identity of
different ethnic groups remain intact. No economic or otherwise migration from
one state to another has eroded the distinctness and diversity of India’s states. In
any case, in a world where cultures are being influenced, and constantly changing,
primarily because of mass media and the internet, to think of living in silos is being
regressive.

Time for Article 370 to Go?

We must not forget that the continuance of Article 370 is the biggest hurdle to a
lasting solution to the Kashmir conundrum. Twelve days after the Pulwama suicide
bombing that left nearly 40 CRPF jawans dead, India retaliated. In the early
morning hours of Tuesday, four Mirage 2000 fighter jets took out terror outfit
Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM)’s camps at Balakot, Manshera, inside Pakistani territory.
On the very next day, Omar Abdullah, National Conference leader and former chief
minister, gave an interview in which he said, “Tinkering with Article 370 or 35A will
be disastrous for Jammu and Kashmir.” As if the timing wasn’t suspicious. But,
then, what else would Abdullah say? Why wouldn’t he try to save what is akin to a
hereditary “jagir” (fiefdom) of political heirs like him the Muftis? Indeed, it is this
opposition to the abrogation of Article 370 that Muslim-dominated Kashmiri
political parties share. Unfortunately for them it is also what they have in common
with separatists in the Valley. Actually, what Abdullah probably meant is that the
repeal of this “Temporary, Transitional and Special Provision” of the Indian
Constitution would be disastrous to his party. He might have added that it would
also prove the undoing of all other overt, quasi, or crypto separatists who have
thrived all these decades on Jammu and Kashmir’s “special status.” Resisting full
integration with the Indian Union, they have given a handle to Pakistan to
interfere, as also an excuse to Western powers to refer to the area as India-
occupied Kashmir. Who in the world dares call Tibet “China-occupied”? Our own
J&K, in comparison, acceded legally not by invasion or conquest. A couple of years
back, Jitendra Singh, Minister of State in the PMO and MP from Udhampur, dared
to wonder if Article 370 “actually worked to J&K’s disadvantage.” Not only did
Mehbooba Mufti condemn his statement, but Omar Abdullah went on to tweet
rather ominously, “Mark my words & save this tweet - long after Modi Govt is a
distant memory either J&K won’t be part of India or Art 370 will still exist.” As if it
is that flimsy provision that keeps the state tied to India not the force of arms in
the face of a relentless an ongoing war waged by Pakistan. Isn’t it time to retort,
“Yes, Mr. Abdullah, we have marked your words but, sorry to say, you may actually
have to eat them.” Not only is J&K a part of India, but the government has at last
taken steps to dilute if not challenge Article 370. On Thursday, the Cabinet
approved extending reservations for SCs and STs to J&K by amending the
“untouchable” Article 370. I called it “untouchable” because just last April, the
Supreme Court had said that it had come to acquire a “permanent status.” This
was quite in keeping with the October 2015 ruling of the J&K High Court.

In a 60-page judgement, Justices Hasnain Masoodi and Janak Raj Kotwal observed:
“Article 370 though titled as ‘Temporary Provision’ and included in Para XXI titled
‘Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions’ has assumed a place of
permanence in the Constitution. It is beyond amendment, repeal or abrogation, in
as much as Constituent Assembly of the State before its dissolution did not
recommend its Amendment or repeal.”But Finance Minister Arun Jaitley explained
that the proposed Amendment would “serve the purpose of application of relevant
provisions of the Constitution of India, as amended through the Constitution
(Seventy Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 and Constitution (One Hundred and Third
Amendment) Act, 2019 for Jammu and Kashmir, by issuing the Constitution
(Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Amendment Order, 2019 by the President
under clause (1) of Article 370.” Justifying this decision, he added, “The Jammu and
Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019” would “give reservation
benefits to the people living along the International Border in Jammu and Kashmir,
who often face shelling from across the border.” The ordinance is to be
promulgated by the President.Kashmir was one of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Himalayan
blunders; an integral part of that blunder was Article 370. Over the years it has
proved to be practically useless to the people of J&K, keeping them
underdeveloped, cut off from the national mainstream, and vulnerable to cross-
border intrusions. Whatever its legal or historical status, the time has come to
amend, if not end Article 370. We must not forget that the continuance of Article
370 is the biggest hurdle to a lasting solution to the Kashmir conundrum. As such,
it is the other side of the Pulwama massacre. Strikes across the border are only one
way to avenge or redress the latter. But the internal rectification required is the full
and complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India. In order to
accomplish this, Article 370 must go.

The Need for The Removal Of Article 370

Before starting with removal of Article 370, let us go to the historical background
and have a brief look on what Article 370 is and the provisions under it. The Article
370 of Indian constitution is a provision by the virtue of which the State Jammu
and Kashmir has acquired a special status . It provides a fairly high degree of
independence to the state, enables the state to have its own Constitution and it’s
own national flag. The provisions of Article 238 shall not apply in relation to the
State of Jammu and Kashmir; also Article 368 (which contains Amendment clauses)
is applied to whole of india, except to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, unless
applied by an order of President of india under Article 370. The provisions of
Article 1 and of this Article shall apply in relation to that state and it also permits
the state to give some special privileges to its “permanent residents”.

Article 370 was drafted by Shiekh Abdullah. He was appointed by Prime Minister of
Jammu and Kashmir, Mr. Hari Singh, and Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru. At the time when
the Constitution of India was being drafted, for all the laws apart from
communication, foreign affairs, finance and defence, the Parliament of India
depended upon the consensus of the State Government. Moreover, the Centre
cannot declare financial emergency under Article 360 in the state, except for the
situations like war or external violence.

In 1947, when Maharaja Hari Singh declared Jammu and Kashmir independent,
Pakistan immediately launched a non – official war to free the region from Hindu
rule, in which there were majority of Muslims. Soon after, Maharaja Hari Singh
realised that he was unable to protect the state, when he asked Indian government
for help. The Indian government was ready to aid but with the condition that
Kashmir would acede to India. The Maharaja agreed upon the same and the Indian
government and the Maharaja signed the accession treaty (“the Instrument”) on
October 26, 1947.

The Clause 5 of the accession treaty stated that it could not be altered without the
state’s consent. Clause 7 specifically protected the state’s right to ratify the
application of any future constitution of India in its territory. It read as:

“Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to

acceptance of any future Constitution of India or fetter my discretion to enter into
arrangements with the Government of India under any such future Constitution.”

Removal of article 370 – the importance

As the matter of point, Article 370 should be removed from Constitution of India,
as Jammu and Kashmir is also a part of our country. It also has many other cons as,
because of Article 370, there are very less industries, which is directly related to
employment. This means that because of this provision, people have to migrate to
other states in search of jobs. Also it has become a terrorist prone region because
of this Article. Due to Article 370, RTE, RTI, CAG and many Indian laws aren’t
applicable in Kashmir which has a situation of corruption.

Some more reasons as to why the Article should be removed are:

1. The state, upon removal, will prosper economically and socially.

2. Social amalgamation will reduce the threat of militancy.

3. Kashmir could be one of the top tourist destination after complete

development.

4. It will also prove to be good diplomacy to deal with Pakistan over territorial
disputes.

5. It will politically give chance to all parties to rule the state and allow its
development.

There could be many other minor or major advantages of abolishing Article 370
and give full course to J&K to prosper.
Thus, the Article 370 needs to be removed from the Constitution of India, so as to
make Jammu and Kashmir as developed and prosperous as other states in India.
That is also necessary to make the people of Jammu and Kashmir feel that they are
no different from other citizens of the country, and to protect the minorities like
Kashmiri pundits.

Remove Article 370 & 35A. This is fertiliser for terrorism in Kashmir

What is Article 370? Every Indian must know.

Article 370 of the Indian constitution is an article that gives autonomous status to
the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The article is drafted in Part XXI of the
Constitution: Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions. The Constituent
Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, after its establishment, was empowered to
recommend the articles of the Indian constitution that should be applied to the
state or to abrogate the Article 370 altogether. After the J&K Constituent Assembly
later created the state's constitution and dissolved itself without recommending
the abrogation of Article 370, the article was deemed to have become a
permanent feature of the Indian Constitution.

Its Heading itself states “Temporary Provisions” and transitional so why wasn’t it
annulled at the 1957 first Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Election.

In the years since Independence, this article was to be removed. But due to bad
administration and wars between India and Pakistan, this article has not been
touched.

● Jammu - Kashmir's citizens have dual citizenship.

● Jammu - Kashmir's national flag is different.

Jammu - Kashmir' Legislative Assembly's term is 6 years.

Whereas its 5 years for the States of India.

● In Jammu - Kashmir it’s not a crime to insult India's national flag or the national
Symbols!

● The order of the Supreme Court of India is not valid in Jammu - Kashmir.

● Parliament of India may make laws in extremely limited areas in terms of

Jammu - Kashmir
● In Jammu-Kashmir: If a Kashmiri woman marries a person of any other state of
India, Kashmiri citizenship to that female ends!. In contrast if a Kashmiri woman
marries a person from Pakistan that person will get citizenship of Jammu - Kashmir.
It is providing Indian citizenship to Pakistani terrorists.

● Because of Section 370

RTI does not apply in Kashmir.

RTE is not implemented

CAG does not apply...

Indian laws are not applicable.

● Sharia law is applicable to women in Kashmir.

There are no rights to panchayats in Kashmir.

●Minorities in Kashmir [Hindus and Sikhs] do not get 16% reservation.

● Due to Section 370

Indians in other states cannot buy or own land in Kashmir. However Kashmiri can
buy land in all over India.

●Private industries do not establish because they cannot acquire own land. This
leads to unemployment in youths. This unemployment give them enough time to
take part in activities like stone pelting and separatism movement.

● Because of Section 370 Pakistanis gets Indian citizenship for which they

only need to marry a girl from Kashmir.

● It’s a good to remove section 370, because due to this our security and
nationalism compromised in Kashmir.

Section 370 has to be removed. Section 370 act as a fertilizer for terrorism.
Separatist are taking advantage of this.

Why every time after the death of a terrorist, we observe acts of stone pelting on
our army, every time; have you ever listened such kind of wickedness in any other
country?

Why do these separatist organizations and other regional parties render a quiet
attitude at the martyrdom of our brave soldiers, but observe a mourning for
hundreds of days at the death of terrorists like Wani, who have made the valley a
living hell?

Article 370: The root Reason of Kashmir problem

Now days after the imposing of governor rule in Jammu and Kashmir, the issue of
Article 370 is again in controversy. Article 370 covers under the part 21 of Indian
Constitution which gives the provision of special status to the Jammu and Kashmir.

Main feature of Article 370 :

(1) Indian Parliament cannot make any law without the consent of state Assembly

(2) Jammu Kashmir has its own flag and constitution

(3) President rule cannot be proclaimed in that state Only Governor rule can be
imposed

(4) Jammu Kashmir has its own Criminal code which name is Ranbir Penal code

Jammu Kashmir is not only such state those have a status of special state . There
are many state like Nagaland, Assam , Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh etc., but in
those state . There is no such type of provision who separate them from India.
Such type of special provision is totally against the unity and integrity of India
which is already mentioned in Indian preamble and in the year 1994 This resolution
have been passed by Indian Parliament that Kashmir is a integral part of India.

If Jammu Kashmir is a part of India than why Kashmir have its own constitution

and this rumour has been spreading by the anti nationalist forces that Article 370 is
a basic structure of our constitution but it is absolutely false Article 370 is a
temporary provision

In Conclusion I would likely to says that special status of Jammu and Kashmir
should be abolished.

And Clause 3 of Article 370 makes it clear that Article 370 can be revoked if a new
constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir is convened and willing to
recommend its revocation.

The Riddle of Democracy, Violence and Politics in Kashmir

With the revocation of Article 35A of the Constitution being a big agenda on BJP’s
manifesto, how long will this struggle last and how shall the people, politicians and
militants in Kashmir keep their struggle alive to defend their homeland, is a
question of careful empiricism. The conundrum of Democracy, Violence and
Politics in Kashmir of which the whole population has been a victim over the years
requires immediate attention and acknowledgement.

Kashmir, since its legal birth, has been raised in an extremely violent atmosphere,
be it at the time of partition, post the instrument of accession, to disputed
elections, to militant insurgency groups on the rise and of course the three wars
that took place between India and Pakistan over the course of Kashmir’s distraught
political history continue to cast a heavy shadow on its present. Since then it has
been a bone of contention between these two countries and has witnessed the
wars of 1947, 1965, and 1999 being fought over and on its soil.

With the exercise of Assembly Elections being highly anticipated in Kashmir by all
the political parties to muster their desired share of power, what do the assembly
elections hold for people? When a common Kashmiri man was approached for the
purpose of this piece, Talib Malik, a 25-year-old engineer simply said, “We don’t
believe in the Constitution of India, it violates our special rights as Kashmiris”.

A less lit up aspect of elections in Kashmir is the preservation of ancestral

leadership that has been a major element of mistrust among Kashmiri voters.
However, now that new faces such as Ex-IAS Officer Shah Faesal, Shehla Rashid and
Er. Rasheed are emerging, it seems that Kashmiri voters have a plethora of options
to choose from.

In July 2016, Burhan Wani, a HizbulMujahideen commander was eliminated from

the valley and his killing triggered unrest and unleashed an unquenchable wave of
rage and ferocity among the Kashmiri population who shouldered his funeral
procession. Recently, Burhan Wani’s successor Zakir Musa met the same fate. With
thousands who appeared to mourn the loss of the slain militant, it sent a loud and
clear message that the Kashmiri population is not ready to be bullied in the name
of democracy and security.

Commenting on the behavior of Kashmiri voters over the years, Danish Bhat, a
member of the National Conference party, said that during the early years, post
1947, the voter turnout was remarkable. However, over the successive years owing
to events like the imprisonment of Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, then the
systematic erosion of internal autonomy have contributed to low voter turnout
during elections over the years.

Another blow to Kashmiri voters struck them when the preferred party in the 2014
elections People’s Democratic Party chose to ally with BJP to form the government.
Now, this particular strategic move cost the PDP heavily, which they regret.

Since the coming of the BJP government, Kashmir has seen heavy militarization,
increased violence against civilians by Indian forces and a sudden high in
recruitment of educated youth into militancy, which has in turn created an
aversion towards the idea of voting and democracy as a concept in general.

Failures of Kashmiri leaders in fulfilling basic promises of access to water,

electricity and good road transport has also pushed away many voters. The
problems in Kashmir and the Kashmir Problem increasing manifold times every
other day has been instrumental in driving voters away from polling booths and
towards more funerals of youth engaged in militancy fighting for the Kashmir that
they love and aspire to autonomously rule one day.

Why Article 35A is obnoxious and temporary

Article 35A violates the very concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution of
India. Its treatment of non-permanent residents of J&K is akin to treating its own
people as second rate citizens. They cannot buy immovable property in J&K, are
not eligible for employment by the state government, cannot contest or vote in
local body or Assembly elections, cannot avail of scholarships and other grants
offered by the state government to its permanent residents and, above all, cannot
seek redress in any court, local or national. Most importantly, it deters the
corporate sector from investing in the state as sans the provisions to buy
immovable property, such investments make little business sense. The state, thus,
remains dependent on the Centre for financial assistance, its economy being
dependent for the most part on government jobs and doles from the Centre to
enable the state to meet its obligations.

The provisions of Article 35A also violate the principles of gender equality. Section
6 of the Constitution of J&K, which derives its power from Article 35A,
discriminates against women residents of the state who marry a person from
another state. The children from such unions are not entitled to the Permanent
Resident Certificate (PRC) or the benefits consequent thereupon, such as the right
to acquire immovable property and a government job. The same, however, does
not apply to the offspring of a male who marries a woman from another state. This
provision has been challenged in the High Court of J&K by Parabhjit Kour Modi,
who has been continuously living and working in the state after her marriage,
along with her non-J&K resident husband and two children, who plead that Section
6 of the State Constitution be declared ultra vires of the Constitution of India. The
response to the above petition by the then Law Secretary Mr Mohammad Ashraf
Mir merely confirmed the discrimination. “Legally and technically”, he said, “her
children are the children of her husband who is from a different state; are not
entitled to the permanent resident certificate or the benefits consequent
thereupon.”

Earlier, women such as Parabhjit Kour Modi used to completely lose the
‘permanent resident status’. After a long legal battle, in 2002, the women of the
state won the right to retain their permanent resident status after marriage. But
the discrimination continues— because their children are still not eligible for the
PRC, which means they cannot get admissions to professional colleges and cannot
apply for state government jobs. They also cannot inherit their mother’s property
or buy property themselves. Such a situation is particularly traumatic and
extraordinarily painful for women who marry ‘outsiders’ and later get widowed or
divorced. They face added trauma as their children have no future in the state of
J&K.

It is also a travesty of justice that the Balmikis and Gorkhas who have been staying
in the state for generations as also the West Pakistan refugees have been denied
the permanent resident status with all its attendant benefits. In May 2017, a
petition was filed by Charu Wali Khanna, a lawyer and former member of the
National Commission for Women, and Seema Razdan Bhargav, a doctor. The
petitioners refer to a 2003 judgment by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which
notes that the state legislature had not enacted any law defining permanent
residents. So “under the guise of Article 370 and Article 35A, the men and women
state subjects are subjected to different treatments.” The contention of the
petitioners in this case is that since Article 6 supersedes her and her children’s
basic rights of residence, education and employment, as guaranteed to them as
“citizens” of India under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, therefore, 35A is
unconstitutional and, hence, deserves to be declared invalid.
As stated earlier, it was on the strength of Article 35A that the J&K Assembly
adopted Article 6 for this purpose in 1956. A Jammu based Non-Governmental
Organisation (NGO), “We the Citizens,” has challenged the constitutional validity of
Article 35A on the grounds that this Article was introduced in the Indian
Constitution in 1954 only through a Presidential order. As per the NGO, “Although
it is within the rights of the President to pass such orders, yet
any such order can become a part of the

Indian Constitution only after it gets approval of both Houses of Parliament

by a majority vote”. The NGO has accordingly questioned the intentions of the
erstwhile central government for including this Article only as an “Annexure” of the
Constitution and not incorporating it in the main text of the Constitution.

The case is now being heard in the Supreme Court of India, which has bunched
together all such petitions and convened a Constitution Bench to review the
constitutional validity of Article 35A. Should Article 35A be declared
unconstitutional, then the special powers of the J&K Assembly to separately
formulate laws on permanent residents will be held ultra vires as will Article 6 of
the J&K Constitution, which effectively blocks the inflow of people from other parts
of the country into the state of J&K. J&K will then be treated like any other state of
India, which will, over time, lead to the complete integration of the state with the
Indian union. The impact of Article 35A has been to impose a sense of exclusivity
and separation from the rest of the country, which has led to confrontation and
religious extremism, with violence focussed against non-Muslim residents of
Kashmir—an unfortunate consequence of Article 35A—which led to nearly half a
million Pandits being forced out of their homes. To make matters worse, Pakistani
infiltrators and Wahhabi Maulanas from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar made their way
into the Valley, which consequently led to the radicalisation of large segments of
the population.

Article 35A is, thus, the one defining Article which acts as a hindrance to the
holistic development of J&K, affecting every sector. It has created a
constitutionally-approved apartheid, giving special political, administrative and
legal powers to the ruling elite of J&K, and, at the same time, being discriminatory
against women and the non-Kashmiri population in J&K and their supporters in the
rest of India. Its repeal will go a long way righting a historical wrong and would be
an important step in bringing peace to the region, though Kashmiri politicians will
oppose the same.

Why Article 35A should removed

In a situation bordering on farce, the prospect of Article 35A being struck down by
the Supreme Court has brought together all political, militant, religious and other
activist groups in the Valley that have been traditionally at war with each. Now, in
support of Article 35A, all such disparate groups—the National Conference (NC),
People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Congress Party and Hurriyat—have come
together, to support the most regressive clause in the state’s history. Fearing
political marginalisation, PDP leader and Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti was the
first to warn the Centre that “there will be no one left in Kashmir to give a shoulder
to the Indian tricolour if 35A is struck down”. Her arch rival, Farooq Abdullah, the
former Chief Minister and head of the NC, had the temerity to warn New Delhi,
“Kashmiris will make you forget the upheaval of the Amarnath movement when
they rise up against nullifying of 35A.” Leaders of the Hurriyat and other fanatic
groups too have launched a new calendar of hartals (public strikes) and warned
New Delhi of a bloodbath if the Supreme Court gives such a verdict. Obviously,
abrogation of Article 35A is seen by such people as the first step to rolling back the
communal agenda followed for decades and the start of a new phase of
participatory democracy, which ill suits their political purposes.

Article 35A is a symbol of “Kashmiri colonialism” over the rest of J&K. In a

memorandum to the Union Home Minister and to the National Human Rights
Commission, the Jammu & Kashmir People’s Forum presented cases of the
communities whose fundamental rights have been “legally” snatched by the state
government—the right to property; right to vote; right to employment; right to
marriage by choice; right to higher education; right to be a member of a panchayat
or a cooperative society; right to avail bank loans. These communities are:

Refugees from PO J&K who were forced to live and settle outside J&K after they
crossed over to Jammu in 1947.

Kashmiri Pandits and Sikhs who were forcibly pushed out of Kashmir Valley.

West Pakistan Refugees (WPR) who migrated to adjoining Jammu in 1947.

Families displaced due to regular firing along the Line of Control (LOC) with
Pakistan.
Balmiki community members who were persuaded by Sheikh Abdullah to migrate
from Punjab to J&K to undertake the scavenging of night soil.

Descendants of Gorkha soldiers of the Maharaja’s Army.Women of J&K who

married men from other states.

The children born of such offspring too are denied all rights. No such provision
exists for the men who marry non-state subjects, making it a gender biased issue.

The people of Ladakh who have to live at the mercy of the Kashmiri administration.

Except for the exiled Pandit families and the people of Ladakh, all other
communities mentioned in this list have been denied the status of permanent
residents or state subjects because of Article 6 of the J&K Constitution, which
draws its powers from Article 35A of the Indian Constitution.

It is a matter of shame that the weakest strata of society, the Balmikis, continue to
be subject to the worst form of human rights abuses. As per the rules of the state,
the resident certificate issued to such persons, even if they are third or fourth
generation settlers, brands them as “eligible only for the job of a scavenger”. So,
even if a young lady from the community holds an MBBS degree, she can only be
employed in the state as a safai karamchari (cleaning staff). Such abuse would put
even Hitler’s Nazis to shame. But the masses in India remain ignorant of such
provisions.

In 1981, the J&K State Assembly used its absolute Kashmiri majority to pass a law,
the J&K Resettlement Act, which opened the doors for those Kashmiris and their
descendants who had migrated to Pakistan, or POJ&K during partition in 1947, to
return to J&K as its legitimate citizens and take charge of their ancestral properties.
However, refugees from POJ&K and their descendants, numbering about 1.5
million today, have not only been kept out of this legal provision but the state
government has consistently refused to let them or their descendants settle in J&K
as “state subjects”. These communities have been demanding their right to those
24 seats in the Assembly which are left vacant in the name of POJ&K. Ironically, the
Muslim refugees from Xinjiang and Tibet, who had migrated to Kashmir following
the Chinese occupation of their countries in 1949 and 1959, respectively, have
been granted “state subject” status, along with voting rights in the Assembly by
the J&K government. The communal agenda of previous state administrations was,
thus, clear. The state was being turned into a state for Muslims only and Article
35A was the instrument used to carry out such a nefarious act.

The Future ahead of Kashmir

In modern times, the space for regressive laws is shrinking. But abrogation of laws
like Article 370 and 35A will be opposed by vested interests. It has taken decades
to rid the Muslim daughters of India of the evil and ignominy of triple talaaq—a
pernicious custom whereby a Muslim male could divorce his wife by a simple
rendering of the word talaaq, three times, by any means. Here too, the Muslim
clergy, all male dominated, termed such a judgement by the apex court as an
assault on their faith, conveniently forgetting that Muslim countries such as
Pakistan have already enacted such laws decades ago. It is, thus, time for India to
move on and not be held hostage to blackmail and threats from religious power
brokers.

The addition or deletion or modification to any part of the Constitution of India

amounts to an amendment to the Constitution. The power to so amend rests in
Parliament as per procedures laid out in Article 368. It is a fact that Article 35A was
never presented before the Parliament which ipso facto means that the then
President bypassed the amending procedure as laid out in the Constitution and
usurped the functions of Parliament. More worrying is the fact that this
amendment has been concealed from the public gaze through subterfuge, by not
mentioning the same in the text of editions of the main Constitution. As an
example, when a new Article on the Right to Education was added to the
Constitution after Article 21, it was named Article 21A and it came up in between
Article 21 and Article 22. New copies of the Constitution subsequently had Article
21, Article 21A and Article 22 in sequence. Why then does Article 35A find no place
in the copies of the Constitution printed after its enactment, when it should have
been placed between Article 35 and Article 36? It is also not found in the list of
Amendments to the Constitution. For some unfathomable reason, Article 35A
appears in the Constitution only as an Appendix, as a result of which even legal
luminaries are not aware of its existence. Jagdeep Dhankhar, a senior advocate of
the Supreme Court and former Union Minister, in his keynote address at a function
organised in the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library in September 2017, made
the pertinent point that he too was unaware of the existence of Article 35A—an
Article which outrages every word of the Preamble of the Constitution of India.
Speaking at the same venue, the former Governor of the state, Jagmohan said,
“The common people of Jammu Kashmir, the poor, no one is benefitting from
Article 370 or Article 35A—whether they are Hindus or Muslims. It is only vested
interests, the elite, who have been benefitting from these provisions. So called
‘experts’, such as A. G. Noorani, are misleading the people by advocating for Article
370,” and reiterated that it is high time for this law to go.

It is time to give justice to the victims of Article 35A. These are the women of J&K
who choose life partners from outside the state and in doing so, lose the right for
their progeny to be state citizens. These are the migrants from West Pakistan who
came in 1947 and settled in Jammu Division. They are the victims of partition who
still languish and long for justice. These are the Balmikis, the safai
karamcharis who have no hope for their children other than to remain in this
profession, regardless of the academic level of accomplishment achieved by them.
These are the Gorkhas of J&K, who have lived here since the 18th century and are
denied citizenship rights till date. Such abuse of human rights must end in a free
and democratic India.

It is time to repeal Article 370 and Article 35A. There will be violence instigated in
the Kashmir Valley when the nation takes recourse to such action, but that cannot,
and must not, deter the state from preserving the right to equality, enshrined in
the Constitution. If it leads to a long and bloody struggle to preserve the basic
character of the Constitution of India, then we, the people of India must go
through with such struggle. We must remember that in the USA, the North went to
war with the South, over the issue of human rights and Abraham Lincoln won the
day. For the good of the people of India and for the residents of J&K, Article 35A
must be repealed forthwith as it will pave the way for the development of the
state and its total integration with the union.

Article 35-A: A Biggest Fraud on Constitution of India

A large number of political and defence analysts attribute instability in Jammu &
Kashmir (J&K) to India’s inability to fully integrate the State into the Union. The
challenges towards such integration have historical roots, dating to the
circumstances under which the State, led by Maharaja Hari Singh, acceded to India,
following Pakistan’s attempts to annex the State through force. Historically,
Pakistan has been also consistently providing support to terrorist and to the
separatist movements in J&K and has also extended such support to promote
 terror in other parts of the country, in furtherance of its own interests. The third
factor is the imposition of Article 370 in the Constitution of India and the addition
of Article 35A, through the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution of India.

Article 35-A of the Constitution of India is an Article that empowers the J&K State’s
Legislature to define “permanent residents” of the State and provide special rights
and privileges to those "permanent residents". It was added to the Constitution of
India through a Presidential Order, i.e., the Constitution (Application to Jammu &
Kashmir) Order, 1954, issued by the President of India on May 14, 1954, “in
exercise of the powers conferred by” clause (1) of Article 370 of the Constitution of
India, with the concurrence of the Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
This special status granted to the State of Jammu & Kashmir is believed to be the
prime inhibiting factor in the complete integration of the State with the Union.

Ram Janmbhoomi Babri Masjid Verdict 2019 – major highlights

The final judgement in the Ayodhya dispute was declared by the Supreme Court of

India on 9 November 2019.[3] The Supreme Court of India ordered the disputed land
(2.77 acres) to be handed over to a trust (to be created by Government of India) to build
the Ram Janmabhoomi (revered as the birthplace of Hindu deity, Ram) temple. The
court also ordered the government to give an alternate 5 acres of land in another place
to the Sunni Waqf Board for the purpose of building a mosque.

The Ayodhya dispute is a political, historical, and socio-religious debate in India, centred

on a plot of land in the city of Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. The issues revolve around the
control of a site traditionally regarded among Hindus to be the birthplace of their
deity Rama,[1] the history and location of the Babri Masjid at the site, and whether a
previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to create a mosque.

The mosque there, the Babri Masjid, was destroyed during a political rally which turned into
a riot on 6 December 1992. A subsequent land title case was lodged in the Allahabad High
Court, the verdict of which was pronounced on 30 September 2010. In the judgment, the
three judges of the Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres (1.12 ha) of Ayodhya land
be divided into three parts, with one third going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Rama
represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha, one third going to the Sunni Waqf Board, and the
remaining one third going to Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu religious denomination. While the
three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after
demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple structure predated the mosque at the
same site.
The five-judge Supreme Court bench heard the title dispute cases from August to October
2019. On 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi,
announced their verdict; it vacated the previous decision and ruled that the land belonged
to the government based on tax records. It further ordered the land to be handed over to a
trust to build the Hindu temple. It also ordered the government to give an alternate five-
acre tract of land to the Sunni Waqf Board to build the mosque.

HISTORY
Babur was the first Mughal emperor of India and the founder of the Mughal empire. It is
believed that one of his generals, Mir Baqi, built the Babri Masjid ("Babur's Mosque") in
1528 on his orders.[19] The belief came into currency since 1813–14, when the East India
Company's surveyor Francis Buchanan reported that he found an inscription on the mosque
walls which attested to this fact. He also recorded the local tradition, which believed that
emperor Aurangzeb (r. 1658–1707) built the mosque after demolishing a temple dedicated
to Rama.
The first recorded instances of religious violence in Ayodhya occurred in the 1850s over a
nearby mosque at Hanuman Garhi. The Babri mosque was attacked by Hindus in the
process. Since then, local Hindu groups made occasional demands that they should have the
possession of the site and that they should be allowed to build a temple on the site, all of
which were denied by the colonial government. In 1946, an offshoot of the Hindu
Mahasabha called Akhil Bharatiya Ramayana Mahasabha (ABRM) started an agitation for
the possession of the site. In 1949, Sant Digvijay Nath of Gorakhnath Math joined the ABRM
and organised a 9-day continuous recitation of Ramcharit Manas, at the end of which the
Hindu activists broke into the mosque and placed idols of Rama and Sita inside. People were
led to believe that the idols had 'miraculously' appeared inside the mosque. The date of the
event was 22 December 1949.[45][8]
Jawaharlal Nehru insisted that the idols should be removed. However, the local official K. K.
K. Nair, known for his Hindu nationalist connections, refused to carry out orders, claiming
that it would lead to communal riots. The police locked the gates so that the public (Hindus
as well as Muslims) could not enter. However, the idols remained inside and priests were
allowed entry to perform daily worship. So, the mosque had been converted into a de
facto temple. Both the Sunni Wakf Board and the ABRM filed civil suits in a local court
staking their respective claims to the site. The land was declared to be under dispute, and
the gates remained locked.
 After the Vishva Hindu Parishad was formed in 1964 and started agitating for the Babri
Masjid site, the two strands of 'saffron politics' came together.[47] The district magistrate
Nair, who refused to carry out orders, was eventually dismissed, but he became a local hero
and subsequently a politician of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh.
In the 1980s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), belonging to the mainstream Hindu
nationalist family Sangh Parivar, launched a new movement to "reclaim" the site for Hindus
and to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ramlala) at this spot. The Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP), formed in 1980 from the remnants of the Jana Sangh, became the
political face of the campaign. In 1986, a district judge ruled that the gates would be
reopened and Hindus permitted to worship inside, providing a major boost to the
movement. In September 1990, BJP leader L. K. Advani began a "rath yatra" (pilgrimage
procession) to Ayodhya in order to generate support for the movement. Advani later stated
in his memoirs, "If Muslims are entitled to an Islamic atmosphere in Mecca, and if Christians
are entitled to a Christian atmosphere in the Vatican, why is it wrong for the Hindus to
expect a Hindu atmosphere in Ayodhya?" The yatra resulted in communal riots in many
cities in its wake, prompting the government of Bihar to arrest Advani. In spite of this, a
large number of 'kar sevaks' or Sangh Parivar activists reached Ayodhya and tried to attack
the mosque. They were stopped by the Uttar Pradesh police and the paramilitary forces,
resulting in a pitched battle in which several kar sevaks were killed. Accusing the central
government led by V.P. Singh of being weak, the BJP withdrew its support, necessitating
fresh elections. In these elections, the BJP won a majority in the Uttar Pradesh legislative
assembly increased its share of seats in the Lok Sabha.
On 6 December 1992, the VHP and its associates, including the BJP, organised a rally
involving 150,000 VHP and BJP kar sevaks at the site of the mosque. The ceremonies
included speeches by the BJP leaders such as Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti.
[50] The mob grew restive through the duration of the speeches, and stormed the mosque
shortly after noon. A police cordon placed there to protect the mosque was heavily
outnumbered. The mosque was attacked with a number of improvised tools, and brought to
the ground in a few hours. This occurred despite a commitment from the state government
to the Indian Supreme Court that the mosque would not be harmed. More than 2000
people were killed in the riots following the demolition. Riots broke out in many major
Indian cities including Mumbai, Bhopal, Delhi and Hyderabad.
On 16 December 1992, the Liberhan Commission was set up by the Government of India to
probe the circumstances that led to the demolition of the Babri Mosque. It was the longest
running commission in India's history with several extensions granted by various
governments. The report found a number of people culpable in the demolition, including
BJP leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Lal Krishna Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, then Uttar
Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh, Pramod Mahajan, Uma Bharti and Vijayaraje Scindia, as
well as VHP leaders like Giriraj Kishore and Ashok Singhal. 
Electoral Bonds – a much-needed reform or legalising political
corruption?