By Daya Sagar
In case Art 35A is a genuine feature of Constitution and is in the best interest of the people of J&K, to be specific for those citizens who are categorised as Permanent Residents of J&K as defined in Section-6 of J&K Constitution, then why is it so that only the Kashmir Valley leadership gets agitated / has got agitated after some questions are raised on ‘provisions’ like Art 35A and recently after a petition has been filed in Supreme Court by a NGO ?
No noticeable reactions have come like the one that have come from Kashmir valley leadership (including PDP leadership) from other regions of J&K. Rather people (Permanent Residents) of regions other than Kashmir have been found welcoming such questions?
Art 35A has been added as a new article after Art 35 in the Constitution by an Order of the President (C.O 48 of 14 May 1954 ) . Those who may like to read its text in detail will have to see Appendix-I to Constitution where only it is available with other items included in C.O 48 since it is not included in the main text of Constitution.
National Conference President, Dr Farooq Abdullah, has been quoted as having said on this August 7 while talking to media in Srinagar: “It (Art 35A) is not just a Kashmir centric issue as they BJP and RSS are trying to project it.
It was very important to discuss the issue of Article 35A and its implications on the State, and all its three regions-Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, so that people understand as to why we are against its abrogation, which gives us the basic right and scrapping it will take away that basic right from us .Big responsibility on shoulders of those who have always worked in direction of keeping the state away from regional frenzy politics. It was Maharaja Hari Singh who in 1927 had brought in the ownership laws of the state, for welfare of state subjects”.
Dr. Farooq Abdullah has gone to the extent of warning BJP and RSS of the dangerous consequences if Art 35A is tinkered with saying that “The Amarnath land agitation in 2008 was nothing as compared to the explosive repercussions Art 35A is bound to create in the State”. Before this, while she was in Delhi , Mehbooba Mufti had also said on July 28 that she has no hesitation in telling that any misadventure with Art 35A, that is also before Supreme Court these days , will leave no one ‘there’ (surely she meant Kashmir Valley) to ‘shoulder’ the National Flag.
One would ask do the contents of the text of Art 35A have different provisions for the Permanent Residents of J&K in Kashmir Valley and for those in Jammu or Ladakh regions ?
The simple answer is No, the text has same meaning for all. Then why reactions and opinions of Kashmir Valley leadership have been different than that of people from Jammu / Ladakh regions?
Going by the behavior of the political leadership of J&K that has so far held the reigns of governance in J&K and have been enjoying the first confidence of New Delhi Government, it could be said that the constitutional provisions what they (Kashmir Valley leadership in particular) call “special for the Permanent Residents of J&K (State Subjects of Class-1 and Class-II particularly and some who may fall with in the provisions of erstwhile Class-III category of pre 1947 times ) have been used less for the good of the Permanent Residents of J&K and more for showing that J&K state is constitutionally at some distance from India as compared to other Indian states .
Farooq Abdullah has advised ‘his’ people and other valley centric leadership to come on one platform to discuss the issue of Article 35A and its implications on the State, and all its three regions-Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, so that people understand as to why ” they” are against its abrogation, which gives the basic right and scrapping it will take away that basic right from people of “J&K”.
Abdullah has also attributed the spirit behind the contents of 35A to the State Subject Law of Maharaja’s times but will he also tell those who oppose his opinion why have not the Governments in J&K also taken a leaf out of Maharajas times where under the provisions of rules for class -III state subjects a person who would acquire some property by an Izajatnama from the government and after staying for atleast 10 years in J&K by entering into Riyayatnama one was granted status of state subject of class-III by Maharaja Government and the Government of J&K / J&K Legislature has not done the same for the 1947 refugees settled in J&K who are staying on and cultivating lands in J&K for more than 6 decades as allotted in terms of Notification No.578-C 0/5 1954 of 7.5.1954 ( State Cabinet’s decision No. 9578-C of 1954) to be possessed and cultivated by them? Even Sections-8,9 of J&K Constitution have not been used judiciously so far .
The present Permanent Resident law that violates the human rights as well as fundamental rights of a woman permanent resident of J&K taking protection from Art35A has not been amended so far although Dr. Farooq Abdullah has himself said in a TV interview that he wants it to be amended but his party colleagues do not agree. Will Dr. Farooq Abdullah tell why his party colleagues do not agree?
…… To be continued.
(Daya Sagar is a Sr. Journalist and a social activist can be reached at [email protected])
