Article 35A, introduced in the Indian Constitution in 1954 as a temporary provision, was aimed at preserving the distinctive identity of Jammu and Kashmir. However, its unintended consequences, when extrapolated, resulted in systemic discrimination against marginalized communities, including the Valmiki caste, Bakarwals, Gorkhas, and West Pakistan refugees in the past. In 1957, a municipal workers' strike in Jammu prompted the introduction of the Valmiki community from Punjab to address the sanitation crisis. Initially promised Permanent Resident Certificates (PRCs) and the privileges of state citizens, these commitments were never honored. Instead, a clause was added, confining them to sanitation work and restricting their career prospects.
This particularly affected the educated younger generation aspiring to become professionals beyond cleaning and odd jobs of menial nature.The abrogation of Article 35 A brought joy to several marginalized communities in Jammu and Kashmir. The controversial article restricted migrant communities from gaining certain rights in the erstwhile state. Among the most persecuted because of this were the Valmikis - three generations later they still did not have a Permanent Resident Certificate and were forced to work as Safai Karamcharis (sanitation workers). Before the abrogation, even after residing in the region for generations, these communities still confronted systematic exclusion from basic rights and opportunities.
The treatment of the Valmiki community, in particular, was a source of disgrace; they endured the most severe human rights violations. Astonishingly, by state regulations, those from this community who were third or fourth-generation residents were designated as "eligible only for the job of a scavenger" on their resident certificates. This meant that even a young lady with an MBA degree was restricted to working as a safai karamchari (cleaning staff) within the state. Radhika Gill, who belonged to the Valmiki caste of Jammu, reflected this awful conundrum. Her dream was to join the Border Security Forces. She cleared the BSF written exam and was also said to have topped the second group of physical tests. When it came to the document verification round, her application was rejected because she had no PRC.
Eklavya, the son of a safai karamchari who migrated from Punjab to J&K decades ago, expressed his aspiration to become a lawyer. Unfortunately, article 35A posed a significant obstacle to pursuing a legal career. As a result, he had to resort to taking on sporadic contract jobs. The valley holds many similar untold stories of individuals who faced similar challenges when article 35 A existed. The challenges faced by these educated youngsters of the minority community served as a glaring reminder of the oppressive impact of discriminatory laws that hindered individuals from pursuing their chosen professions and reaching their full potential. This struggle was not confined to the Valmiki community alone; it extended to various marginalized groups such as West Pakistan refugees, Gorkhas, and others, who had been denied permanent resident status and the associated benefits.
In Jammu and Kashmir, several government programs intended to uplift Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities did not apply, leaving these communities without crucial safeguards, including the protection provided by the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Moreover, Bakarwal Muslims, classified under the ST category in the state, had been unjustly denied the benefits provided by numerous tribal acts designed to safeguard the livelihoods and dignity of tribal communities across India. Article 35A perpetuated gender bias by barring women from passing on their state-subject rights to their children and non-permanent resident spouses. Rooted in an economic protectionist measure, this archaic provision denied women equal rights within the state.
The discriminatory impact of Article 35A permeated various crucial aspects of life, including education, employment, and political representation, casting a shadow over the prospects of many individuals. Notably, this provision resulted in the exclusion of competent professionals from outside the region, effectively barring them from seeking government employment. The consequence was a dearth of skilled workers in pivotal sectors such as healthcare and education, where their expertise and contributions could have had a transformative impact. Furthermore, the absence of political reservations for Scheduled Tribes exacerbated the imbalance of opportunities, which denied them a fair share in the political landscape. This oversight perpetuated an inequitable distribution of power and influence, limiting the ability of marginalized communities to have their voices heard and their concerns addressed in the corridors of decision-making. The repercussions of this systemic bias were far-reaching, reverberating through generations and impeding the region's progress toward a more inclusive and egalitarian society.
These issues had to be not only acknowledged but also actively addressed to pave the way for a more just and equitable future for all inhabitants of Jammu and Kashmir, and abrogation of the article led to exactly that. The spirit of the article, originally intended to preserve Jammu and Kashmir's distinctive identity but then was quasi-permanently applied, showed the immoral agenda of certain elite parties which resulted in extensive discrimination against numerous marginalized communities and their modern educated youth. It encompassed a range of consequences, from property rights being withheld to restricted employment prospects, profoundly impacting individuals and their communities. Those persistently advocating for the retention of Article 35A prioritized the interests of an elite minority over the broader needs of the common populace.
The abrogation of Article 35A represented a clear and unequivocal departure from the entrenched elite agenda, which sought to perpetuate a system where minority communities were unjustly relegated to the margins of society, their rights and opportunities curtailed. This historic move has now heralded a new era of empowerment and equality, dismantling the barriers that had long hindered the progress and aspirations of these marginalized communities. It was a glowing testament of the collective will of the society that aspired to transcend the divisive narratives of the past, and instead, forge a future where every citizen could stand on an equal footing, unburdened by the weight of discrimination, persecution and oppression. The abrogation of Article 35A underscored the unwavering commitment to uphold the principles of justice, freedom, and dignity for all, paving the way for a more inclusive and harmonious society.
Comments