Article 35A: The Complete Story of Kashmir’s “Special Status” Law
For decades, a single constitutional provision stood at the heart of India’s most complex political and emotional debate: Article 35A. More than just a legal clause, it was the bedrock of Jammu & Kashmir’s unique identity within India—a symbol of autonomy for its supporters, and a mark of discrimination for its critics. To understand the journey of modern Jammu & Kashmir, you must understand the story of Article 35A: where it came from, what it did, why it sparked such passion, and how it came to an end.
1. The Origin Story: A Promise of Protection
Article 35A didn’t come from India’s original Constitution. It was born in 1954 through a Presidential Order rooted in Article 370—the article that granted Jammu & Kashmir its special autonomous status after it acceded to India in 1947. Think of it like this: Article 370 was the framework of the special relationship, and Article 35A was the key rule created under it. It was designed to protect the state’s demographic character after the turmoil of Partition by letting the state itself define who belonged there.
2. The Core Function: Defining the “Permanent Resident”
So what did Article 35A actually do? In simple terms, it gave the Jammu & Kashmir legislature the exclusive power to define the state’s “Permanent Residents.” Only these residents could access a special set of rights that were off-limits to other Indian citizens. This wasn’t just about voting—it was about creating a legal fence around jobs, land, and state benefits. Click Here To Follow Our WhatsApp Channel
3. The Special Rights: Land, Jobs and Identity
Under Article 35A, being a Permanent Resident came with concrete privileges:
- Property Ownership: Only residents could buy land or a house in Jammu & Kashmir.
- State Government Jobs: Public sector employment was reserved for them.
- State Scholarships and Educational Aid.
- Political Rights: Only residents could vote in state elections or run for the state assembly.
In essence, Article 35A made residency a prerequisite for full economic and political participation in the state.
4. The Rising Controversy: Charges of Discrimination
Over time, Article 35A became deeply controversial. Critics argued it was unfair and unconstitutional on several grounds:
- Gender Bias: If a Kashmiri woman married an “outsider” (a non-resident Indian), she could lose her residency status and property rights—a rule later softened but not fully resolved.
- Stranded Communities: Groups like the Valmikis (brought as sanitation workers in 1957) and West Pakistan Refugees (who fled in 1947/65) lived there for generations but were denied full residency rights—barring them from most jobs and property ownership.
- Constitutional Questions: Many legal experts argued that because Article 35A was added via Presidential Order—bypassing Parliament’s amendment process—it was legally shaky. They also said it violated the Indian Constitution’s promise of equality and the right to settle anywhere in India.
5. The Legal and Political Standoff
For years, Article 35A was challenged in the Supreme Court, which heard arguments but never gave a final verdict. Politically, opinions were sharply split:
- In Kashmir: Mainstream parties saw Article 35A as an “article of faith”—essential to protecting Kashmiri identity and autonomy.
- In New Delhi and Jammu: Many, including the BJP and groups in Jammu, saw it as an unfair anomaly that held back investment, fueled separatism, and denied rights to women and refugees.
6. The Historic Revocation: August 2019
The debate reached a dramatic climax in August 2019. The Central Government took these decisive steps:
- A New Presidential Order replaced the 1954 order that contained Article 35A, effectively voiding it.
- Article 370 itself was revoked through a Parliamentary resolution.
- Jammu & Kashmir was reorganized into two Union Territories.
Since Article 35A existed only through Article 370, its legal foundation disappeared overnight.
The Legacy: What Remains After Article 35A
Today, Article 35A is history—but its legacy is very much alive.
- For Supporters of the move, its end corrected a “historical wrong,” opened the path for economic investment, and brought equality by allowing all Indian citizens to own property and access opportunities in the region.
- For Critics, its revocation marked the unilateral end of a constitutional promise, deepening a sense of political disempowerment in Kashmir and raising concerns about demographic change.
Article 35A was more than law—it was a defining marker of identity and belonging. Its story captures the tension between regional autonomy and national integration, between protection and discrimination. Whether seen as a shield or a barrier, understanding Article 35A remains essential to understanding the past and navigating the future of Jammu & Kashmir.
You Might Also Like:
At 13, This Kashmiri Boy Built 31 Apps and AI Tools
Delhi Court Convicts Kashmiri Separatist Asiya Andrabi in UAPA Case
Why Is Omar Abdullah Silent as a Kashmiri Shawl Seller Is Brutally Attacked in Uttarakhand?