One Kashmir – One India
Jammu and Kashmir always had a questionable special status under the constitution since 1954, through article 370, deriving as it is the power to have separate constitution, state flag and autonomy to administer itself. The 1954 Presidential Order issued after consultation with the state's Constituent Assembly had profound provisions indeed. Drafted in Part XXI of the Constitution, these were however, "Temporary, Transitional and Special”. Article 35A, issued under the same order, empowered the J&K state's legislature to define "permanent residents" of the state and provide special rights and privileges to them. The government on 5th August 2019, abrogated this discriminatory special status. The critiques however have continued to question the repealing, citing instead, that since the Constituent Assembly dissolved itself without recommending the abrogation of Article 370, was it not deemed permanent within the Constitution?
What exactly were these privileges? The residents could purchase land and immovable property, could vote and contest elections, seek government employment and avail other state benefits such as higher education and health care. In a way, Article 35A, allowed the J&K state's residents to live under a separate set of laws, including that of citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights, as compared to residents of other states. Is this inequality among equals or equality among unequal’s?
Now for the discriminatory part. Non-permanent residents of the state, even if Indian citizens, were not entitled to these 'privileges'. That the migrant labour was in great discomfort due to this is another story. No land or property could be purchased by citizens from other states. Even the State's own female residents, stood losing their permanent resident status by marrying out of state. No one ever asked why at all, citizens from other States should accept such glaring differences even as all of them belonged to the same nationhood. It was only natural that the idea of having a State within a State was going to be loathed, abhorred, disliked and criticised for all times to come. The unequal treatment led to continued skirmishes and clashes ultimately resulting in the brutal killing of almost 350 members of Hindu community most of them Kashmiri Pandits in 1990. The killings continue to this day. What was more tragic was that at least ten thousand Kashmiri Hindus converted to Islam sowing the seeds of discontent in Kashmir. A 20% Hindu population in 1947 in Kashmir dwindled to less than 2% in 2020. Several less than honourable actions of our neighbour kept the cauldron simmering. Non-State actors from across the borders promoted unrest and terrorism shattering the peace of a supremely endowed natural, tranquil and pristine beauty of the State.
That a constitutional wrong triggered a genocide was extremely unfortunate. That terrorism still thrives, killing our brave forces every other day is doubly unfortunate. The government on its part and to its credit contained and continues to contain the damage to the borders, never letting the mayhem penetrate other States. A series of steps were required however for a more permanent solution. It meant a course correction for several acts of omission and commission through the years, which rendered the situation volatile, insecure and politically very sensitive.
Either a Military intervention or a political solution that satisfied all parties or a change of government that thought differently or a combination of all of these were the only options for peace to prevail. Sure enough, the country saw a change in government in 2014 and the back-channel efforts at forging peace were on in right earnest, though they yielded very little. When the government returned to power in 2019 with a bigger mandate, it was beyond a semblance of doubt for all concerned that the people were ready to back its decisions with elan and to the hilt.
Thus, the context set, the government on 5th August 2019, took the bull by the horns, issuing a constitutional order, superseding the 1954 order with a 2/3rd majority in both houses. It meant that the Indian constitution was now applicable in entirety to J&K. The order of 6th August declared all the clauses of Article 370 except clause 1 inoperative. The master stroke of all was passing of the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, enacting division of the state of J&K into two union territories one for J&K and the other for Ladakh. Thus, the last nail was driven into the coffin of inequalities and ambiguities that we were living with since independence. The road to peace is long and arduous. The Union territories cannot and must not become States as we understand, until a complete integration is affected.
Continuing the ‘work in progress’, on 26th October this year, the government notified several changes to laws in the Union Territory of J&K, under the provisions of the Reorganisation Act. For a start, it will allow outsiders to buy land in the UT apart from the permanent residents, fulfilling a long-standing demand of the citizens of the country. A change in the demographic composition of the region is also tied to its prosperity, in as much as allowing industrialisation and providing a pathway to Kashmiri pandits for walking back home. The flipside though is that the restrictions on outsiders purchasing land in the state are actually about recognising the needs of various regions and the people inhabiting them. Such concerns must also be addressed.
Industrial development zones can now be set up in the region without the involvement of permanent residents, and contract farming can be conducted on agricultural land, two essentials for growth. Though agricultural land is out of bounds for non-permanent residents, the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use can now be done with the permission of the District Collector, a provision that has a potential for misuse as it could displace genuine farmers in the name of industrialisation or infrastructure projects.
Similar laws exist in Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, North East and now Ladakh, ostensibly to protect the locals, but need to be relooked at from a unifying perspective of “One Nation – One People - One Law”. More so if the 5 trillion-dollar GDP is to be realised. In as much as local needs are to be protected, can it be at the expense of industrial and infrastructural development?
Yes, there will be several voices that will ask for a rollback of the decisions. Unfortunately, even work done for the public good also can have critics. That it cannot be rolled back must be understood and accepted by all concerned. The government has shown both intent and action. It means business in unequivocal terms. There is more work left to be done. Our side of J&K is part of a larger region of Kashmir. The rest of it is in occupation since 1947, partly by Pakistan and, partly by China. The next step must surely be to liberate it, to see “one Kashmir in One India” and in our lifetime.
