The gender discrimination argument behind repealing Art 35A is justified to a large extent.
However, a larger picture reveals that Art 35A is more relevant for the Duggar region of Jammu for a variety of reasons.
Repealing it is likely to impact the cultural identity and economic opportunities of communities like the Dogras of the Duggar region.
What would be the impact?
Identity - the provisions of the article have their roots in 1927 laws brought by the last Dogra ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh.
Protecting the Dogras from domination by elite and affluent non-state subjects, mostly from neighbouring Punjab, was the prime motive.
Repealing Art 35A would largely impact the identity and interests of the Dogras.
Industry - Promoting the development of the presently weak Jammu and Kashmir industries is another reason proposed for repealing the law.
This is because Art 35A specifies some restrictions on non-permanent residents of the state to carry on business in the state.
However, ground realities indicate that geographical location of the state, a limited market, and manufacturing costs and the volatile law and order situation are the real impediments to industrial growth.
Opportunities - Contrary to the industrial development proposal, opponents feel that repeal of the law would only limit the opportunities.
Concessions in recruitment, professional academic courses, scholarships and other financial assistance will become more competitive, depriving many of the advantages at present.
Also, influx of “non-subjects” would increase pressure on landholdings, farm activity, etc given the withdrawal of residency restrictions.
This may result in shrinking opportunities for the local skilled and unskilled labour, farmers, etc.
Integration - The introduction of Art 35A safeguarded the rights and the distinct identity of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
This essentially minimised the scope for deprivation and conflicts and thus ensured the peaceful coexistence of the state with the nation.
Arguing that removing Art 35A would lead to the integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India contradicts the above reality.
It would rather only make them more insecure and affect the smooth relationship between the state and the nation.
What is the way forward?
Art 35A, to a large extent, has only worked in favour of the people in J&K, preserving their unique social identity.
Government can undertake verification of the state subjects to identify those who have become permanent residents through questionable means.
Addressing the flaws in Art 35A, rather than repealing the entire law would balance the concerns and opportunities.
