Opinion | BJP manifesto's stand on Article 370, 35A adds fuel to fire
3 min read . Updated: 12 Apr 2019, 12:12 AM ISTDevelopment or the lack of it in J&K isn’t an aspect of Constitutional provisions
When the dust settles after the Lok Sabha elections, and a new central government emerges in May, some poll promises in the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) manifesto may come to haunt it, should a BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) forms the government.
The Bharatiya Janata Party’s promise to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution related to Jammu and Kashmir has repercussions for security far beyond that roiled state. So will this promise: “We are committed to annulling Article 35A of the Constitution of India as the provision is discriminatory against non-permanent residents and women of Jammu and Kashmir. We believe that Article 35A is an obstacle in the development of the state."
Trouble may come to pass even if the manifesto, released just three days before the first day of polling, is meaningfully late. As a sharp editorial in Mint pointed out, a possibility is that “the party’s campaign pitch and tenor is already synchronous with its manifesto’s content, leaving no room for dissonance or discord". That may work fine within the party structure, which now projects a one-man show, but the world outside is of a different construct.
It isn’t the first time the BJP has promised to abrogate Article 370. Its manifestos in 2014 and 2009 did so, too. The party is entitled to its ideological belief that a Constitution within a Constitution, which Article 370 provides Jammu and Kashmir, is incongruous, and goes against the spirit of unity. The umbrella of India’s Constitution and its mandated federal structure already provide adequate safeguards. Indeed, using precisely the same logic, officials negotiating with Naga rebels since 2015 have argued against a rebel demand for a separate Constitution for Nagaland.
But the incendiary reaction to Bharatiya Janata Party’s recent announcement over Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, especially in Kashmir Valley, is indicative of bad timing. It comes in the backdrop of an all-round policy-and-practice failure, particularly since 2016. Kashmir is dangerously on edge.
Even moderate leaders in the Valley have openly pointed to an abrogation of Article 370 effectively signifying the abrogation of Kashmir’s accession to India—as one was tied to the other.
While this is dangerous talk—and triggered by Bharatiya Janata Party rhetoric—a trickier aspect is Article 35A.
Among its various provisions, it grants special rights to permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir for: “(i) employment under the state government; (ii) acquisition of immovable property in the state; (iii) settlement in the state …" and, of course, defining who are such residents, and who can, therefore, vote locally.
A point to consider is that, development or the lack of it in Jammu and Kashmir, isn’t an aspect of Constitutional provisions, but of conflict since at least 1989, whether precipitated and fuelled by Pakistan or sustained by awkward policies and people skills of India.
Another point is: What of provisions for other states that mimic Article 35A?
Article 371A of India’s Constitution permits for Nagaland primacy of “religious or social practices of the Nagas", “Naga customary law and procedure", “administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law", and “ownership and transfer of land and its resources". Besides government jobs and such.
Article 371C provides for administrative safeguards for the tribal “Hill Areas" of Manipur; while local laws safeguard the land and customary rights of tribal folk. Article 371G applicable to Mizoram is nearly a mirror of the provisions for Nagaland. Special provisions govern the rights of tribal folk and forest dwellers—although the latter is under severe stress on account of policies of the current government—in other north-eastern states and, indeed, across India.
How can the Bharatiya Janata Party, in its manifesto and manifestly in the claims of its senior leaders, promise development with such Constitutional fetters, as it were? And yet, claim Article 35A prevents development of Jammu and Kashmir?
Technically, abrogating Article 370 and “nullifying" Article 35A will remain a matter of jurisprudence and numbers in Parliament.
But the Bharatiya Janata Party has indicated that Jammu and Kashmir may not be more than a pawn for perception management in its ideological strongholds in the Jammu region and elsewhere in India.
This column focuses on conflict situations and the convergence of businesses and human rights.