New Delhi: Blaming Article 35A for blocking the development of Jammu and Kashmir and its use as a tool by the state government to “discriminate” between citizens of its own state, finance minister Arun Jaitley on Thursday said the article was “surreptitiously” included in the Constitution and was guided by an “erroneous vision” of the then government. The minister’s remarks could set off a fresh controversy in Kashmir and elsewhere.
Noting how the state had lost development initiatives because of the article, Mr Jaitley said the Narendra Modi government wants “the rule of law in the interest of the people of the Kashmir Valley and the larger interest of India, must equally apply to the entire Jammu and Kashmir”.
The state is now under President’s Rule after the BJP cut off ties with the Mehbooba Mufti-led PDP, which was heading the coalition government in the state.
In a blog post titled “The Rule of Law and the State of Jammu & Kashmir”, the BJP leader said Article 35A was “constitutionally vulnerable” and was used as a “political shield by many” but “hurt the common citizen of the state the most”.
“Was the Nehruvian course, which the state had embarked, a historical blunder or was it the correct course to follow? Most Indians today believe it is the former. Does our policy today have to be guided by that erroneous vision or an out of box thinking which is in consonance with ground reality?” questioned Mr Jaitley.
Without naming the Congress, National Confenernce and the PDP, Mr Jaitley said “regrettably, they let down the people of the state” for not distancing from separatism, violence and terrorism absolutely.
Article 35A was neither a part of the original Constitution framed by the Constituent Assembly nor did it come as a constitutional amendment under Article 368 which requires approval by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament,” wrote the Union minister.
“It came as a presidential notification and is a surreptitious executive insertion in the Constitution,” said Mr Jaitley, adding that the article gives the right to the state government to discriminate between two state citizens living in the state on the basis of declaring some as permanent residents while leaving out others. It also discriminates between permanent residents of the state and all other Indian citizens living elsewhere, he wrote.
“Lakhs of Indian citizens in J&K vote in the Lok Sabha elections but not in the Assembly, municipal or panchayat polls. Their children can’t get government jobs. They cannot own property and their children cannot get admitted to government institutions... The same applies to those who live elsewhere in the country. The heirs of ladies marrying outside the state are disinherited from owing or inheriting property,” the minister said. He said the state does not have adequate financial resources and its ability to raise more has been crippled by Article 35A.
No investor is willing to set up an industry, hotel, private educational institution or private hospital as he can neither buy land or property, and nor can his executives do so, he added.
