Source: http://risingkashmir.co/news/article-35-a-unite-to-protect-states-identity-331086.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:51:56+00:00

Document:
The Muslim majority status of Jammu Kashmir has never been acceptable to the right wing organizations that are hell bent to make every effort to deprive the state of its very unique political identity and the special status that it enjoys under the Constitution of India.
In their lust for uniformity and to pave smooth way to make Uniform Civil Code applicable across the country, the repeated attack on the special status of the state can be viewed as one such move.
The separate constitution of the state according to which it’s governed, its own state subject laws and the restricted powers of the Indian parliament to make laws in respect of the state has always remained under attack since from its inception.
Sensing trouble to follow legislative route, these groups found it better to take judicial route to impress upon the court to declare Art 370 and Art 35-A null and void.
In the year 2014, a Delhi based NGO-“We The Citizens” filed writ petition where in it challenges the validity of both Art 370 and Art 35-A.
The 51 page petition contends that Art 370 was a ‘temporary provision’ to help bring normality in Jammu and Kashmir and strength democracy in that state.
Though the challenge to these special provisions is not a new thing, however what has set the alarm bells ringing is the reluctance and delay on part of central government to file counter affidavit in the Supreme Court as has been a practice by earlier regimes that subsequently resulted in the dismissal of such politically motivated writ petitions.
As one turns over the pages of the history, it becomes quite clear what necessitated these constitutional safeguards to protect the identity and rights of the state subjects/citizens of the state as was also stated by the then Prime Minister of Kashmir Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah in his statement given to Constituent Assembly of the state on 11th August 1952.
The present day “state subject laws” and other special rights that Art 35-A guarantees to the state subjects of the state finds its roots during the times of Maharaja when Jammu and Kashmir was a princely ruled state under British paramountcy.
The political movement started during early 20th century led to the emergence of “heredity State Subject” as a political identity for the state’s people.
On 20th April 1927, the then Maharaja passed the Heredity State Subject notification at the instance of Kashmiri pandits that feared an influx from Punjab. This order granted to state subjects the right to government offices and the right to land use and ownership which were not available to non-state subjects.
Following the singing of Instrument of Accession (IoA) with the Indian Union on 26th October, 1947 the Maharaja ceded control of only three subjects to the Government of India vizDefense, External Affairs and Communication.
Following the conditional accession of the state, the Constituent Assembly of India incorporated Art 370 in part XXI of the Constitution that grants special status to the state.
The future relationship between the state and the Indian Union was discussed in Delhi Agreement of July 1952 between the then PM of India Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah.
Following this agreement the Indian citizenship (Art 5 of Indian constitution) was applied to the state but in return Art 35-A was incorporated into the Constitution of India on 14th May 1954 through the presidential order that is the constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) order 1954 passed by then President on the aid and advise of Nehru cabinet in accordance with the Art 370 (1) (d) of the Constitution of India and with the concurrence of the Government of Jammu Kashmir.
This assurance was infact given by Nehru to the Kashmiri delegation during the Delhi Agreement negotiations that were anxious to preserve the state subject laws and were apprehensive that Kashmir would be overrun by people whose sole qualification might be the possession of too much money and nothing else, who might buy up, and get the delectable places. This too was even stated by Nehru to the Indian Parliament.
From State’s High Court to Supreme Court of India, the special status of the state has been upheld in several judgments. However as the judgments/orders delivered by the Supreme Court are open for judicial review (Art 137), the issue is being raked up again and again for political gains.
The intensions of such writ petitions becomes quite evident as one finds that under the same part of the Constitution (Part XXI) twelve other states of the Indian Union also enjoys special status in certain matters and there is no hue and cry on this.
These includes Maharashtra & Gujarat (371), Nagaland (371 A), Assam (371 B), Manipur (371 C), Andhra Pradesh &Telangana (371 D and E), Sikkim (371 F), Mizoram (371 G), Arunachal Pradesh (371 H), Goa (371 I), Karnataka (371 J).
This provision inserted in 1962 explicitly bars the Parliament of India from making any law in respect of “ownership and transfer of land” in Nagaland and also “its resources”. Similar is the case with Mizoram.
As one of the eminent constitutional expert A.G. Noorani rightly opines: “Kashmir would never have acceded to India, even in its hour of peril, if it knew that decades later communal minded persons would want to wipe out that notification which Art. 35A sanctifies”.
Though it’s for legal luminaries to argue and prove the validity of these provisions in the court of law that we are confident of, but as a society and responsible citizens we all must unite to thwart any such attempt that is aimed to destroy the identity of the state.
There is a need to mobilize mass public opinion in all the three regions of the state and make general public aware that if at all Article 35-A is annulled or diluted it will have serious implications and may act as a tool to change the demography of the conflict torn state.
The unity shown by different trade bodies and every responsible citizen of the state is a good gesture but at the same time we must remain cautious regarding any ill-conceived and mischievous design to divide the people on region, religion and language basis.
We can never accept to become refugees in our own land on the pretext of so called development that can happen only if Article 35-A goes.

References: Art 370
 Art 35
 Art 370
 Art 35
 Art 370
 Art 35
 Art 370
 Art 35
 Art 370
 Art. 35