Advantages and Disadvantages of Article 370 and Article 35A

Article 370 outlines the connection between Kashmir and the rest of the country, whereas Article 35-A provides special rights to permanent inhabitants of Kashmir. From the beginning, India’s constitutional relationship with this state has been unbalanced. India has previously provided constitutional safeguards (special provisions) to states having Mizo and Naga populations, such as safeguarding indigenous social traditions. India has several examples of positive discrimination against groups (Articles 15 and 16) and states (as previously indicated). To put it another way, the difficulty with Kashmir is that positive discrimination has tended to be subtle. Rather than going through the parliamentary process, the President signed Article 35-A, which turned it into a law.

What does Article 35A entail?

Article 35A empowers the J&K Assembly to define “permanent residents” and grant PRC to J&K residents. Even though PRC holders are entitled to various rights and benefits not enjoyed by non-PRC citizens, this clause allows discrimination even among PRC citizens. Article 35A is a section of the Indian Constitution inserted by the President of India without being considered or approved by the Indian Parliament. It is against the spirit of India’s Constitution. This clause discriminates against people based on caste, class, gender, and place of origin, clearly violating our country’s fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution.

What are the implications of Article 35A?

No one is entitled to property rights, employment in state government, participation in Panchayat, municipal, and legislative assembly elections, admission to government-run technical education institutions, scholarships, and other social benefits, voting rights, or the right to join central services unless they are defined as “permanent residents” by the PRC. As a result, it discriminates against the rest of the Indian population. For the past six decades, this Article has denied all of the rights mentioned above to diverse populations, including Scheduled Caste Valmikies from Punjab, West Pakistan Refugees, Gorkhas, and women residing in Jammu-Kashmir.

J&K and Women

Under its current permanent residence legislation, J&K, a constitutionally privileged state in India, does precisely what most anti-women nations do. Women in J&K were disqualified as ‘permanent residents’ if they married non-permanent residents in 1927 when the Dogra ruler Hari Singh established the ordinance. The J&K High Court overturned the antiquated statute in 2002. However, women in the state cannot transfer their state subject rights to their offspring or non-permanent resident spouses in 2019.

The Importance of Repealing Article 370

Before we begin repealing Article 370, let us review the historical context and effects of abolishing Article 370 and look at its clauses. Article 370 of the Indian constitution confers unique status for the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It gives the state a high level of autonomy, allowing it to have its own Constitution and national flag.

Article 370: The Root Cause of the Kashmir Issue

Article 370 has resurfaced recently because of the effects of its abolishment with the imposition of governor control in Jammu and Kashmir. The provision of special status to Jammu and Kashmir is covered under the impact of abolishing article 370, found in Part 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Article 370’s Main Features

(1) The Indian Parliament cannot pass any legislation without the state legislature’s approval.

(2) Jammu Kashmir has its flag and constitution. 

(3) In such a state, a presidential rule cannot be declared. 

(4) Jammu Kashmir has its criminal law, known as the Ranbir Penal Code, which only the Governor can enforce.

Kashmir’s Future Prospects

The room for regressive laws is limited in modern times. However, vested interests would fight any repeal of legislation like the effects of abolishing articles 370 and 35A. The cruelty and ignominy of triple talaq—a ritual in which a Muslim male may divorce his wife by just using the word talaq three times, by whatever means—has taken decades to be eradicated for the Muslim daughters of India. The Muslim clergy, which is overwhelmingly male, branded such a ruling by the Supreme Court as an attack on their faith, conveniently ignoring that Muslim nations like Pakistan had previously implemented similar legislation.

Conclusion

As a result, the conclusion of Article 35A is a defining article, and the effects of abolishing Article 370 obstruct the holistic development of J&K, impacting every sector. It has established a legally sanctioned apartheid, granting the ruling class of J&K special political, administrative, and legal rights while discriminating against women and the non-Kashmiri people in J&K and their sympathisers in the rest of India. The removal of the conclusion of Article 35A would go a great way toward correcting a historical injustice and would be a significant step toward restoring peace to the area, despite opposition from Kashmiri officials. As a result, Article 370 of the Indian Constitution must be repealed for Jammu and Kashmir to become as developed and prosperous as the rest of India.