Tinkering with Article 35A intolerable, will "undermine" Kashmir's identity, character

By Syed Mujtaba Hussain*
The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing petitions under Articles 370 and 35A filed by an NGO over the special status of the state of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K). The Kashmiris have rejected the move terming it ill-intentioned and BJP quest for change of demography.
To recall, according to Lord Mountbatten’s plan for partition of subcontinent (June 3, 1947), around 500 princely states acceded to India. But on October 27, 1947 the Indian army landed in the Himalayan valley of Kashmir, leading to what many consider as leading to one of the world's deadliest disputes.
The Indian forces entered Kashmir after Maharaja Hari Singh, faced with an internal revolt as well external invasion, requesting assistance from India's armed forces. Pakistan's Pashtun tribal militias had crossed the border of the state, and the Maharaja had already lost control of the western districts of his kingdom.
The Maharaja agreed to hand over control of his defence, communications, and foreign affairs departments to the Indian government. Though both sides agreed the accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh would be ratified by a referendum, which was to be held after hostilities ceased, that vote was never held even after 70 years, making Kashmir an unsolved legacy of partition.

Articles 370 and 35A of Indian Constitution

Indian political leadership, instead of attending to United Nations resolutions over Kashmir, tried to pacify Kashmiris through different legal deceptions. In 1949, Jawaharlal Nehru struck a deal with Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, an influential political figure in Kashmir, and inserted Article 370 in the Indian constitution.
The article defines Kashmir’s political relationship with New Delhi by granting special status to J&K. It restricts New Delhi’s legislative jurisdiction only to defence, foreign affairs, and communications.
In 1954, through a presidential order, Article 35A was passed under Article 370 (1) (d) of the Indian constitution. The Article accords special rights and privileges of the permanent residents of Kashmir in government jobs, land acquisition and other public projects.
On September 14, 2018, Indian Supreme Court adjourned the hearing on petitions challenging the validity of Article 35A of the constitution to January next year in view of the ongoing law-and-order situation in the Kashmir Valley.
The Supreme Court’s hearing on the annulment of Article 35A has once again created fear in the valley. Former J&K Chief Minister and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chief and National Conference, two regional mainstream parties, did not contested the planned polls in Kashmir.
Separatist leaders, trade unions, religious organisations etc threatened that any attempt to change the demography of the state by “tinkering” with Article 35A will be “intolerable” and warned that Kashmiris would “spill their blood” to safeguard the identity and character of the state and “no court, whether in India or in Pakistan, has any jurisdiction to take decisions that can in any way affect the disputed status of Jammu and Kashmir”.
Article 370 and Article 35A have been a contentious issue ever since the state of J&K was annexed to the Republic of India. India has avoided resolution of Kashmir through UN resolutions and have been scheming many political and legal strategies to portray settlement of the issue. Judicial activism is one of the key features of South Asia since 1980.
The judiciaries in Pakistan and India, on numerous occasions, have turned down overturned controversial policies of their respective governments in the greater public interests and attempted to deliver justice to the weaker sections of society.

Syed Mujtaba Hussain

Tinkering with the Article 35A, 370 is used as a political strategy by the Centre to change the demography of the state. Be it the rigging of 1987 elections or atrocities inflicted by Public Safety Act (PSA) and Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), New Delhi’s policies towards Kashmir haven’t changed much, Centre has never really given Kashmir the promised ‘right’. What Congress did behind the curtain BJP is doing it openly.
It is time for the Supreme Court of India to decide the issue on merit. The Apex court may decide not to attend to the petitions that go against UN resolutions, rather bound its government to sincerely settle the fate of Kashmiris being humiliated on a daily basis. Let the petition in the Supreme Court be the beacon of hope and peace in the region.
---
*Human rights activist, observer of socio-political contexts. Contact: jaan.aalam@gmail.com

Comments

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman* In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

From Puri to the State: How Odisha turned the dream of drinkable tap water into policy

By Hans Harelimana Hirwa, Mansee Bal Bhargava Drinking water directly from the tap is generally associated with developed countries where it is considered safe and potable. Only about 50 countries around the world offer drinkable tap water, with the majority located in Europe and North America, and a few in Asia and Oceania. Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, and Singapore have the highest-quality tap water, followed by Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the USA, Australia, the UK, Costa Rica, and Chile.

Michael Parenti: Scholar known for critiques of capitalism and U.S. foreign policy

By Harsh Thakor* Michael Parenti, an American political scientist, historian, and author known for his Marxist and anti-imperialist perspectives, died on January 24 at the age of 92. Over several decades, Parenti wrote and lectured extensively on issues of capitalism, imperialism, democracy, media, and U.S. foreign policy. His work consistently challenged dominant political and economic narratives, particularly those associated with Western liberal democracies and global capitalism.

Search This Blog