THE GIST of Editorial for UPSC Exams : 08 August 2019 (Revocation of 35A may ring alarm bells in other states (Live Mint))

Revocation of 35A may ring alarm bells in other states (Live Mint)

Mains Paper 2: Polity
Prelims level : Article 370
Mains level : Effects of the Article 370 revocation process

Context

Discussions over splitting of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) into Union territories under the direct control of New Delhi.
Indeed, with seismic developments over Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution earlier this week, it seems incredible that the BJP had actually entered into an alliance of convenience with PDP after a fractured mandate in assembly elections in J&K in 2014.
A couple of backgrounders on the matter—the split of the state and, implications of the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A.

Background

This logic has also existed beyond right-wing silos for several years.
Article 370 and, in particular, annulling Article 35A on account of being “discriminatory against non-permanent residents and women of Jammu and Kashmir" and it being “an obstacle in the development of the state" has outstanding issues.
Some analysts have pointed to Article 370’s effective demise proving to be a point of concern for other states, particularly in North-East India.
But it’s not Article 370 that reflects various provisions and concerns in North-East India, but Article 35A, which resembles such provisions.

Highlights of the various special provision

Article 35A

Article 35A, among its various provisions, granted special rights to permanent residents of J&K for:
(i) employment under the State Government;
(ii) acquisition of immovable property in the State;
(iii) settlement in the State …" and, of course, defining such residents.

Article 371A

This closely resembles Article 371A of India’s Constitution that 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

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. Arunachal Pradesh restricts access, residency and ownership of property to outsiders.
Special provisions also govern the rights of tribal folk and forest dwellers—although the latter is under severe stress on account of policies of the current central government in other North-Eastern states such as Assam and Meghalaya.
Indeed, ownership of property is also reserved in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and parts of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, among other states.
This discrepancy has been noted by such states.
If Article 35A prevented development of J&K, and is therefore cauterized, then how can similar provisions aid development elsewhere?

Conclusion

There are already vocal concerns about such matters in North-East India, where it is being linked to concerns of erosion of autonomy, property and livelihoods, at a time of great political flux in the region, with volatile immigration issues and several peace talks with rebel groups in progress. New Delhi will need to provide answers.
Online Coaching for UPSC PRE Exam

General Studies Pre. Cum Mains Study Materials

Prelims Questions:

Q.1) Which of the following country is the top trading partner of the United States according to the latest official data?
A. China
B. Mexico
C. India
D. Russia