ARTICLE 35(a) OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION : PART 3
https://samarthchakrawartiblog.blogspot.com/
In the year 1846, during British rule, the treaty of Amritsar happened in which Jammu & Kashmir was given to Maharaja Gulab Singh by the British government. Which made the state of Jammu and Kashmir a princely state. What does being a princely state mean? Let's Understand,
During the British Rule, there were two types of states:
1. British-controlled states
2. Princely states
Whoever lived in a British controlled state were known as British controlled Subjects. Whereas the population of Princely state was known as State subjects. To recognize the state subject of Jammu and Kashmir, some legal provisions were formed during the year 1912-1932. Such as the hereditary order of 1927 which stated that every state subject of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to:
- Right to use the land
- right to ownership of land
- Right to the government office and much more,
However, these provisions are not applicable to any non-state subjects. After adopting Article 370, the Indian constitution was extended to every state subject of J&K. But the leaders and Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir wanted the state's subjects to be treated differently. That is why during the Delhi agreement from which article 370 was introduced. Dr Rajendra Prasad passed a presidential order in May 1954, which gave birth to Article 35(a).
So what is article 35(a)? Let's understand. Article 35(a), in simple words, distinguishes between a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir and other residents and which special right will be given to the state subjects. According to this Article, State government jobs, the Acquisition of immovable property, Settlement in the state, Scholarships, and other state benefits were only offered to the permanent citizens of Kashmir. "Moreover, it was clearly stated that in future, points which are stated in article 35(a) shall not be declared void on the grounds that it is against the constitution of India or they are against the rights of Indian citizens" This is the reason which makes this article against the constitution of India.
Jammu and Kashmir had its own flag, its own constitution, and only the people of Jammu and Kashmir had dual citizenship (one of India and the other one was of J&K). This article prevented private firms to establish their business over there. Due to this, there were limited options for employment in J&K which resulted in the youth of J&K joining hands with terrorism to earn money. Now I will tell you how 35(a) violates the fundamental right of a woman. A permanent male resident of Kashmir is allowed to marry a non-state subject and his wife being a non-state subject gets all the privileges of a state subject. Contrary to this, a woman from J&K who marries a non-state subject is punished — she loses many of her state subject rights. Her husband and children are disbarred from acquiring the state subject status. Her children cannot inherit her property, cannot get entry into government colleges, cannot get government jobs — and cannot vote.
How does it even justify the statement that article 35(a) promotes the growth and development of the population of Jammu and Kashmir? Due to lack of opportunities, the youth of Kashmir was under compulsion to join hands with terrorism, which brainwashed them and made them believe that the Indian army is their enemy and torturing them is an act, they should be proud of. The local Kashmiri media houses used to portray any act of reciprocation from the Indian army as if they are humiliating the local population of Kashmir. But no politician or political party of India was courageous enough to talk about the discriminatory law of J&K because they were afraid of their vote bank, Indian media houses were silent.
In the next blog, I will discuss the blackest incident in the history of independent India, the exodus of Kashmiri pandits, and Sikhs.
If you are new to my blog, don't forget to click on the subscribe button for post notification and do read my previous blogs on:
JAI HIND!
Your articles are amazing. That's greatly said that the youth of J&K was brainwashed and even their parents supports. Indian Government from 1947 was thinking in welfare and upliftment of the economy of J&k, but the youth of that territory was missguided and which eventually make the youths against the Indian authorities. The decision taken to abrogate article 370 and 35A was a better decision. The government of J&K is focusing on something other than development in this beautiful territory. Three years before I was planning to go no to Srinagar, but due to the increased terrorist attacks I cancelled my plan. But today after knowing that the authorities lies with the central government I feel comparatively safe to travel. We hope our Indian government will take certain actions and decisions to get some of our territories that are being occupied by our neighbouring countries. I had a very strong belief that before 2024 we will be able to celebrate India's independence on the entire territory of Jammu&Kashmir and Ladakh. Jai Hind
ReplyDelete