Diluting Article 35A will be risky
ered the state legislature to regulate the rights of permanent residents. Article 35A of the Indian Constitution merely clarifies the different status of J&K on this. Questioning the validity of this Article has no bearing on the rights of state subjects. Nor can the order of 1954 be questioned without questioning the validity of other provisions of the Constitution extended to J&K. Such orders have been used before to amend the state’s constitution.
Indeed, this has been done despite the fact the constituent assembly—the ultimate ratifying body— dissolved after the adoption of the J&K constitution in November 1956. This flagrant misuse of the provisions of Article 370 to erode the autonomy of J&K was started by Jawaharlal Nehru and was continued by succeeding governments. It has been a major causefordisaffection.Notsurprisingly,Kashmiris have come to regard the rights of permanent settlement as the only remaining piece of any meaningful autonomy.
It is worth recalling that these rights were the product of a long struggle. This goes back to 1889 when the state government changed the court language from Persian to Urdu — a move that undercut the dominance of the Kashmiri Pandits in the state bureaucracy and led to an influx of Punjabi Hindus. The ensuing campaign against ‘outsiders’ led to the search for criteria of permanent residence, including acquisition of immovable property and length of residence. In 1927 the Maharaja enacted the definition of ‘Hereditary State Subject’. This legislation was used by Kashmiri Muslims to demand greater representation and opportunities. Later still it formed the basis of the relevant provisions in the J&K constitution. Against the backdrop of Kashmir’s accession to India, these provisions understandably assumed huge importance as a bulwark of the state’s special status.
Any attempt to tamper with them is bound to result in a massive backlash. At a time when J&K stands close to the boil, New Delhi can illafford to ignore this situation.