Possible implications of abrogating Article 35A, on the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Possible implications of abrogating Article 35A, on the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
What is Article 35A ?
The Article 35A of the Indian Constitution empowers the state legislation of Jammu and Kashmir to not only define “permanent residents” of the state but also equip them with special rights and privileges. So the people holding the Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC), have exclusive right to acquire property in the state and enjoy any state-sponsored schemes.
These privileges and rights are not extended in any way to any non-permanent citizen. Thus a person from Uttar Pradesh cannot move the courts saying that their right to equality is infringed by a special right given to a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Article is located in Appendix-1 of the Indian Constitution within the text of Presidential Order, 1954.
Historical context behind article 35 A :-
Prior to 1947, the state of Jammu and Kashmir came across as one of the princely states, whose citizens were not referred to as the British colonial subjects but as subjects of the state, under the British rule.
In 1927, the then Maharaja of Kashmir, passed the Hereditary State Subject Order which granted the respective state subjects with the right to government office and the right to land use and ownership. These rights were extended solely to the state subjects and eliminated any availability of the same to the non-state subjects.
After the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Union in 1947 even though the Maharaja ceded all control to the Government of India, the exclusivity of state subjects remained unchanged. In the 1952 Delhi Agreement, the government of the state and the Union collectively agreed upon the extension of Indian citizenship to all residents of the state but the state would still be empowered to legislature over the rights of the state-subjects, who will now be referred to as permanent residents.
Implications of abrogating article 35 A :-
Positive:-
Closer integration of the valley with the rest of the country
Accelerate development and investment in the valley
It will further uphold right to equality and right to reside in any part of the country
Negative:-
1 Impact on other orders:-
Then all 41 subsequent Presidential Orders will then become susceptible to legal challenges because all of these Orders were in essence amendments to the 1954 Order. These subsequent orders have extended 94 out of the 97 entries in the Union List to the state as well as applied 260 articles of the Indian Constitution to the state.
2 Alienation:-
Such moves only deepen the sense of alienation on the ground and push Kashmiri youths towards
militancy .Abrogating Article 35A may permanently alienate the people of Kashmir.
If India is not going to honour Article 35A, the people of the State of Jammu Kashmir might protest that they are no longer bound by the instrument of accession and state of Jammu and Kashmir would become a sovereign state.
3 Land issues:-
If this Article goes the land in the state of Jammu Kashmir can be purchased by any one from India and with the passage of time the state will lose all its land.
4 Business affected:-
Once the people of India would purchase land in Jammu they would open their businesses in Jammu and the business community of Jammu would be seriously affected.
5 Housing issue:-
Further, the people of Jammu would face shortage of accommodation as most of the slums who will come from other parts of the country would settle in Jammu rather than in Kashmir.
6 Employment issue:-
Presently, most of the educated youth in Jammu Kashmir are unemployed and if protection by Article 35A would have not been given to them. The fate of educated unemployed youth of Jammu Kashmir would be worse.
The benefit of this provision is that only permanent residents can contest elections and if this Article goes everyone from the country is entitled to contest elections.
7 cultural aggression and the death blow to Kashmir identity
Another implication of abrogation of this article would result cultural aggression and the death blow to Kashmir identity. Thus Kashmir will suffer more culturally and morally while as Jammu will also suffer economically and socially and Ladakh would not be an exception.
Conclusion :-
Article 370 and 35-A accords special status to the state of Jammu Kashmir within the Indian Union. The special status ensured by these articles makes it different from other states and allows the state to have its own constitution and protects its identity. So Multiple stakeholders need to be involved to take a decision that is the national interest.
What is Article 35A ?
The Article 35A of the Indian Constitution empowers the state legislation of Jammu and Kashmir to not only define “permanent residents” of the state but also equip them with special rights and privileges. So the people holding the Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC), have exclusive right to acquire property in the state and enjoy any state-sponsored schemes.
These privileges and rights are not extended in any way to any non-permanent citizen. Thus a person from Uttar Pradesh cannot move the courts saying that their right to equality is infringed by a special right given to a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Article is located in Appendix-1 of the Indian Constitution within the text of Presidential Order, 1954.
Historical context behind article 35 A :-
Prior to 1947, the state of Jammu and Kashmir came across as one of the princely states, whose citizens were not referred to as the British colonial subjects but as subjects of the state, under the British rule.
In 1927, the then Maharaja of Kashmir, passed the Hereditary State Subject Order which granted the respective state subjects with the right to government office and the right to land use and ownership. These rights were extended solely to the state subjects and eliminated any availability of the same to the non-state subjects.
After the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Union in 1947 even though the Maharaja ceded all control to the Government of India, the exclusivity of state subjects remained unchanged. In the 1952 Delhi Agreement, the government of the state and the Union collectively agreed upon the extension of Indian citizenship to all residents of the state but the state would still be empowered to legislature over the rights of the state-subjects, who will now be referred to as permanent residents.
Implications of abrogating article 35 A :-
Positive:-
Closer integration of the valley with the rest of the country
Accelerate development and investment in the valley
It will further uphold right to equality and right to reside in any part of the country
Negative:-
1 Impact on other orders:-
Then all 41 subsequent Presidential Orders will then become susceptible to legal challenges because all of these Orders were in essence amendments to the 1954 Order. These subsequent orders have extended 94 out of the 97 entries in the Union List to the state as well as applied 260 articles of the Indian Constitution to the state.
2 Alienation:-
Such moves only deepen the sense of alienation on the ground and push Kashmiri youths towards
militancy .Abrogating Article 35A may permanently alienate the people of Kashmir.
If India is not going to honour Article 35A, the people of the State of Jammu Kashmir might protest that they are no longer bound by the instrument of accession and state of Jammu and Kashmir would become a sovereign state.
3 Land issues:-
If this Article goes the land in the state of Jammu Kashmir can be purchased by any one from India and with the passage of time the state will lose all its land.
4 Business affected:-
Once the people of India would purchase land in Jammu they would open their businesses in Jammu and the business community of Jammu would be seriously affected.
5 Housing issue:-
Further, the people of Jammu would face shortage of accommodation as most of the slums who will come from other parts of the country would settle in Jammu rather than in Kashmir.
6 Employment issue:-
Presently, most of the educated youth in Jammu Kashmir are unemployed and if protection by Article 35A would have not been given to them. The fate of educated unemployed youth of Jammu Kashmir would be worse.
The benefit of this provision is that only permanent residents can contest elections and if this Article goes everyone from the country is entitled to contest elections.
7 cultural aggression and the death blow to Kashmir identity
Another implication of abrogation of this article would result cultural aggression and the death blow to Kashmir identity. Thus Kashmir will suffer more culturally and morally while as Jammu will also suffer economically and socially and Ladakh would not be an exception.
Conclusion :-
Article 370 and 35-A accords special status to the state of Jammu Kashmir within the Indian Union. The special status ensured by these articles makes it different from other states and allows the state to have its own constitution and protects its identity. So Multiple stakeholders need to be involved to take a decision that is the national interest.
