Srinagar: What happened in Supreme Court? Has Article 35A been scrapped? Is there call for two months continuous strike? Have we lost unique identity? All these and many more questioned were doing rounds all the day on Monday as Supreme Court heard a petition seeking abrogation of Article 35A, a provision in Indian constitution which bars a non-state subject from purchasing land or property, seek a government job or vote in the Assembly election in Jammu and Kashmir.
INS walked through various markets in the Kashmir Valley and found people talking about the hearing before the top court.
“I am sure Supreme Court of India will do away with the protection otherwise guaranteed in Indian Constitution. Judiciary is an organ of government and the Government is trying to use it,” said Zaffar Ahmad, a resident of Lal Bazar.
Asked whether what is Article 35A, Ahmad said, “To be honest no, I don’t know about in depth but all I can say it secures our unique identity within Indian constitution and no outsider can buy our property.”
Gulzar Ahmad, a resident of Habba Kakal Srinagar said: “Government won’t evict us from our property. Wealthier Indians would offer higher prices for the property and there will be no existence of Kashmiris within few months if God forbid Supreme Court of India abrogates the Article 35A.”
In buses, in markets, offices, almost everywhere, people were seen talking about hearing before Supreme Court with unease.
Besides the main petition, six applications were filed on behalf of M/s Mir Kasim, Balwant Singh and Sadiq Hussain; Tariq Hameed Karra, Change India; Rao Farman Ali and others; Ghulam Ahmad Lone and Akhtar Hussain Kochak. First three have been filed for intervention while remaining for impleadment as party respondent to the main plea.
On July 17, the Government of India informed the top court that it has already taken a “conscious decision” of not filing a counter affidavit to the petition, filed in 2015 by a Delhi based NGO—‘We The Citizens’, “because the issues which are raised for adjudication, are pure questions of law.”
Noted senior lawyer, Zaffar Shah plainly puts significance of the provision as: “Article 35A concerns everybody. The point is that we believe that this particular provision must exist. Whether we call it our identity, or safeguard or protection, this is our belief that this provision must exist and it has been in existence for more than 60 years. How come somebody come and question its existence after 60 years? This Article 35A protects us and obviously this is not needed by people of India. All the other states merged with union of India, we did not merge. We had limited accession and please don’t ignore that aspect. Therefore, keeping in view limited accession, 35A had to be made by the President of India to protect the special status.”
Given the importance, the NDA government ‘conscious decision’ before the apex court has set off alarm bells in the state, among the people, mainstream parties in the state as well as the resistance leadership. Home Minister Rajnath Singh tried to allay fairs during his last visit but unease remains and would probably linger as long the petitions are finally decided by the Supreme Court.
ADVERTISEMENT
