Article 370—a temporary provision—is certainly not a basic feature and as such there ought to be no bar against its repeal.” Farooq Abdullah is, thus, wrong that Article 370 is permanent. It depends on the political will of a central government to abrogate it. But he may be right that no central government, even if it is led by Narendra Modi, will dare to do so. What exactly did Modi say at the rally? Going by the press reports, he said that the BJP would carry forward the initiatives in Jammu and Kashmir on the principles of “Insaniyat, Jamhuriyat and Kashmiriyat” as envisioned by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, that “whether Article 370 has done anything good or bad should be discussed, but has Omar Abdullah’s sister got the same right as him?”( Omar’s sister is married to junior Union Minister Sachin Pilot, hailing from Rajasthan), that “despite huge natural resources, the state government has always been approaching the Centre with a begging bowl, that corruption is rampant in Jammu and Kashmir, that it was time that there should be laws to prevent corruption be there in the state something that is not possible as the rules made by the centre are not applicable in the state because of Article 370, and that “Article 370 of the constitution grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The BJP has always advocated for scrapping the Article.” Most of the reactions that followed Modi’s suggestion centered round why, how and if the women in the state of Jammu and Kashmir do not enjoy the same property rights as that of the men. Omar termed Modi’s view on the subject was factually wrong. As Prof. Rekha Chowdhary rightly says, “Article 370 has nothing to do with this issue. It is the issue of Permanent Residents of the state. This was a local law passed in 1927 by Maharaja Hari Singh. According to this law, only the state subjects were entitled to certain privileges including state employment and ownership of property. The discrimination against women was a later phenomenon. The Permanent Resident Certificate (a terminology used for ‘state subjects’ in post-1947 period) for women was stamped ‘valid till marriage’. After their marriage women, in order to enjoy the rights of Permanent Residents of the state had to be reissued the certificate, in case they married the Permanent Residents. Women who were married outside the state were not issued such certificate. This administrative practice was challenged in the High Court of the state and in 2004 decision came in favour of women. As per the present legal position, no distinction is made between men and women in their right to be the Permanent Residents. This is despite the fact that the then ruling PDP (under Mufti Mohammad Sayed)tried to undo the High Court decision by introducing a bill (twice) for disqualifying women to be the Permanent Residents of the state if they marry outside the state. However, the bill could not be introduced due to the vehement opposition within the Assembly and outside. Hence women even if they marry outside the state continue to be the Permanent Residents of the state”. indiandefencereview/understanding-the-article-370/
Posted on: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 05:16:41 +0000