By H H Mohrmen
The abrogation of article 370 which used to give special status to erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir and the division of the state into two regions as expected made the citizens of this country to form and express their own opinions on the issue. It is also on expected lines that there would be those who are against the stealth move made by the central government while a large chunk of the population is in favour of the decision and supports the government. Those who are in favour of or against the move have their own arguments and reasons to either support or oppose it.
Those who are against the abrupt decision are of the opinion that the move is unconstitutional and it betrays the federal nature of the Constitution because the abrogation was made without consulting the stake holders or the people affected by the move. The Kashmiris are of the opinion that the special status that article 370 guaranteed is also related with the accession of the state to independent India and the withdrawal of this article tantamounts to betraying the spirit on which the state was integrated to the country. For them, Kashmir’s integration to India is on the basis of article 370 which also provides them the special status, but there are also those who maintain a studied neutrality and have remained silent.
There are also those who support the decision to do away with the Article but are against the means used to bring in the abrogation. They are of the opinion that the means do not justify the ends.
The arguments of those who support the government largely rest on the fact that the Jammu and Kashmir problem has not only been the bone of contention between the two nuclear power countries but it has bled India dry. For 70 years now the Jammu and Kashmir state has become one of the few places in the world with heavy military presence. In these 70 years the Government of India has spent huge amounts of money to maintain law and order in the state where the forces are meant to tackle cross-border terrorists who infiltrate from the neighbouring country to create trouble in the region. The argument to abrogate the Article is also on the grounds that it was not meant to be permanent and since there is also a demand from the people of Ladakh to give the region a separate entity the move was timely and appropriate.
Abrogation of article 370 is also in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) election manifesto for the 2019 general election which means that they have the mandate of the people after the alliance had won 303 seats in the Lok Sabha. There is a huge support for the strong decision taken by the Government, not only from among the alliance partners but even people who had not supported the Government in the last election also lent their support to the NDA Government at least on this one issue. And surprisingly, even some Congress leaders extended their support to the abrogation of 370 and 35(A).
Corporations which supported the Government move announced that they are ready to invest in the region in spite of the economy going downhill. But the question is whether the region ready? Or is the investment going to be in the interest of the locals and with the consent of the people? There are also people who openly stated that ‘they can now buy land in the region.’ What this tells us is that these people have been eyeing the place and waiting for the opportunity to capture land in the area. If this is the kind of mindset that the majority population in the country has towards the state then, can we say that the fear of the locals of being overwhelmed by the outsider is not real and cannot be justified? This brings us to the point that this write up wishes to put on the table and that is identity and land ownership that the other states in the periphery of the country have which is the issue in the entire conundrum.
The other states in the periphery of the country particularly those in the North East of India are mandated by the Constitution to restrict land ownership in their respective states only to the locals. The father of the Constitution, Dr BR Ambedkar had debated at length on this issue and realised the need to protect the culture, and identity of the tribal people and had therefore come up with a framework within the Constitution to protect their rights. Similarly, the princely states in the north eastern region joined the Indian nation on special grounds and on the basis of the Instrument of Accession. It was based on the principles that people have unique culture and land ownership system that needed to be protected, that the Instrument of Accession was signed and a special Schedule in the Constitution was incorporated to protect their rights.
These unique cultures are many, and if we take land as an example, for the tribal, land is not something that one sells and buy at one’s wishes and convenience. Land is not just space but integral part of their life. It is something that one inherits from one’s ancestors and in many case family heirlooms (ba ïoh pateng). The hills and the vales are the dwelling places of the gods (ki ryngkaw ki basa) and the spirits of ancestors (ki syngia ki saret) are hovering over the winds. People have special connection with their land and culture. That is why people are reluctant to leave the place because away from their land and culture, they are like fish out of water. They live in with nature and nature lives in them and only people who understand how profound the connection that people have with their land and their culture is, will be able to appreciate the bond that they have with the community and nature.
Perhaps like the tribals, the Kashmiri too have this special bond with the land and that is why they want to protect it, because people who come only for business and just for the sake of the beauty of the land will not have this special bond with the land and culture. People from outside the culture do not have and will not be able to appreciate this special relationship. Hence the locals are within their rights to have this apprehension. Now this argument is supported by the fact that immediately after the union territory was created, the Ladakhis voiced their demands for recognising the people in the region as Schedule Tribes and demanded that they also be provided mechanisms for land protection as enjoyed by the states in North East.
There is this fear of being overwhelmed by the majority population almost everywhere in the region in the periphery of the country. Now if the majority in the country try to impose its own will and agenda on the minorities then does this not amount to assimilation? The crux of the problem in this entire imbroglio, whether it be in Kashmir, Ladakh or in the other states in the periphery of the country is the question of identity and land rights. The Constituent Assembly recognised this and hence provided solutions within the framework of the constitution to address this issue, but only time will tell what the outcome will be when these constitutional remedies are being removed one after the other.