The past few days have been no less than sheer turbulence in the socio-political environment of India. The upper house of the parliament has been instrumental in passing important bills one after the other but the one that took the nation by storm is Abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A that assigned special Status to Kashmir. Since then there have been debates and discussions on the issue. Many are in favour of the decision, thereby terming this as one of the most audacious moves taken by any government in the history of India, whereas many claim this to be an interference with constitutional and civil rights of people. Each group has its own perspective to look at the issue but what needs to be understood is that it is too early to decide or to judge whether this move is right or wrong. This is just too early to put a ‘stamp’ that this will resolve the conflict that has been infecting the air of the valley for years and it will be a great step towards their development. At the same time, I feel we cannot judge this to be a step made against the Kashmiris for just to acquire the land. However, there are certain questions that need to be addressed and pondered upon carefully in the direction of the move.
First of all, let’s understand why exactly a special status means in the Indian constitution. Is it just that a state will have autonomy in every administrative affair and will enjoy right? Not really. ‘Special category’ status is a classification given by the center to develop those states which face geographical and socio-economic disadvantages like hilly terrains, strategic international borders, economic and infrastructural backwardness, and non-viable state finances. Certain autonomy and privileges are conferred to these states which include the establishment of special development boards, reservation in local government jobs and educational institutions. So, as we see, the special status not only offers political empowerment but also assists a state well towards economic and social growth. So the question here is if the agenda is the development of Kashmir and Kashmiris then why is an instrument, that was meant to serve exactly the same purpose, been withdrawn? The state that requires a lot of improvement in economic fundamentals as well as in education and employment has been made devoid of the law that was actually made for this purpose.
The above point can be argued upon with the fact that there should be one country governed by one set of rules. Well, this is well understood because the states even without a special status enjoy their civil and fundamental rights completely and even J&K can now join the league. But if this is a matter of constitutional equality then, it is important to note that at present there are 12 states in India that enjoy the Special Status under Article 371, namely Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. An extended implement of 371 (J) offers special provisions to a few backward districts of Karnataka and Hyderabad. The special status of Goa and Andhra Pradesh do not offer any provision to these states and hence are not included in the list. This allows these aforementioned states to make its own laws in all matters except finance, defence, foreign affairs, and communications.
Article 370 had similar provisions for the State of Jammu & Kashmir, which also included the establishment of a separate constitution and a separate flag and denied property rights in the region to outsiders. That meant the residents of the state live under different laws from the rest of the country in matters such as property ownership and citizenship. So basically Article 370 & 371 have the same provisions, yet only article 370 has been subjected to abrogation. Why is it so? If we examine the factor for which a state is granted a special status of which geography is an important aspect, why do we have Karnataka on the list? Maybe nobody found it significant enough to be noticed. So the point that Kashmir has now officially become a part of India has no basis because if having special status excludes a state from India then I feel none of the above-mentioned states should be a part of India.
Next is Article 35A which has been abrogated together with Article 370. This assigns the right to property ownership and citizenship within the State of Jammu and Kashmir. One of its implication was that a Kashmiri woman will lose her right to property inheritance and Kashmiri citizenship if she marries a man from outside Kashmir, which was struck down by a judgment passed by the J&K High Court in 2002. Now the abolition of 35A disqualifies this further. But the strange part is this is looked up as a way to own properties and ‘women’ in Kashmir! What will be so motivating for people to book a property in the valley that is in a state of cross border tension? Or is it that powerful industrialists will get an opportunity to utilise this piece of land equated to paradise? So Kashmir basically is more important than Kashmiris. Well, that time will tell.
Further, the point that should surprise us the most is, the state status of Jammu and Kashmir has been taken away in this whole process. Even after scrapping 370 and 35A, there was no strong need to declare it a Union Territory because anyway, the center would have been able to govern the state in its usual way. So can we infer that more than anything else this was done to establish a more authoritative power in the valley? This is justified by the argument that it will improve conditions associated with militancy and terrorism but then, article 370 did not come in the path of decisions taken by the centre in the area of defense! The justification hence is vague. And as far as this new law works, there is no such record that a union territory can never be subjected to terrorist activities. Thus, the statehood of Jammu & Kashmir could have been easily retained.
Now the most important part. Why has the presence of Kashmiris been missing from the context? It is absolutely important that the group of people who are actually going to be affected or benefitted by this change should have an opinion on it more than anyone else. The people of Jammu and recently separated Ladakh have been quite positive towards this however the Kashmiris are yet in a state of arrest and the government seem to be unaffected by it.
The current state of despair in Kashmir has to end and they should get back their means to communicate with the rest of the country. If we see another angle of this, the UAPA bill that has been recently passed in the Rajya Sabha gives the government power to declare any individual a terrorist can be misused in combination with the abrogation of Article 370. If an innocent civilian is charged with terrorism then it will be a strong violation of constitutional and civil rights. Meanwhile many cases of violent treatment to those who are not in favour of this decision, are surfaced and the most prominent one is the imposition of section 144 in Hyderabad university in order to stop students from exhibiting any sort of protest. If everything is for the welfare of people then why can’t they disagree on the same? The current scenario in Kashmir, wherein almost no importance has been given to their voice, may put the people in a state of constant fear. So the government has to assure that there will no misuse of the laws in order to control the people of Kashmir.
As this is considered a historic decision for our country, it should prove to be the same for all the positive reasons. The government’s role must not remain confined to gaining authority on the piece of territory but it must also work towards developing a better Kashmir.