J-K 'citizenship' law and its implications

The central government may have played it well by first escalating the situation (saying that non-natives could apply for all jobs except the non-gazetted jobs) and then giving concessions by amending the rules. What was surprising (or perhaps not) was the timing of the decision to form new domicile laws of J-K.

New Delhi: While the country was busy fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, the BJP-led government was busy introducing a new definition of what constitutes a domicile in the union territory (UT) of J-K through the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Adaptation of State Laws) Order, 2020.

The new definition had the entire political spectrum in J&K resisting it uniformly forcing the union government to back down and issue a new notification tweaking its own previous definition. While some of the unease has calmed among the UT’s politicians, their concerns are far from over.

But before we get to that, let me put J-K’s domicile issue in perspective. Until August 5, 2019, when New Delhi decided to read down article 370 of the Indian constitution which provided special status to J-K and divided the erstwhile state into two Union Territories (J-K and Ladakh), the constitutional authority to define who was and who was not a domicile of J-K lay with the legislative Assembly.

More pertinently, only those were defined domiciles could apply for jobs in the state (with some exceptions such as the central civil services) jobs or buy immovable property there. As a matter of fact, J-K’s domicile issue precedes article 370 of the Indian constitution. Laws made in 1927 and 1932 under the then, and the last, ruler of the state, Maharaja Hari Singh, had defined citizenship and the attendant benefits of the citizens.

These laws were appropriately adopted into article 370 and 35A of the Indian constitution after independence. The government’s initial order reserved only non-gazetted posts for the residents of J-K which led to protests all across the political spectrum from the major valley-based parties such as the National Conference, the Peoples’ Democratic Party and even the new political party, the Apni Party, which is widely believed to enjoy the support of the Central government.

Responding to the unease in the valley, New Delhi has since amended the rules. In its final form, the rules mean that only the domiciles of J&K would be able to apply for jobs in the Union Territory.

The rules also stipulate that those from outside the union territory, who have been residents of J-K for 15 years, would be counted as domicile residents and therefore be able to apply for jobs.

Even the amended rules have been opposed by the Kashmir Valley’s political class. PDP stated that “While securing the future of our youth is pivotal, GOI should've addressed the apprehension regarding the assault on the demography of J&K. Token concession with a backdoor left wide open in the form of new domiciles does nothing to mitigate the aspersions cast on GOI’s urgent move during a life-threatening pandemic”.

Besides the lasting impact this might have on the state and its political and ethnic composition, there were also immediate concerns about the law before the revision. There are, according to reports, about 84,000 job vacancies in the UT of J-K and the new domicile would have had major implications for the recruitment process which after the amendment would be less serious.

The central government may have played it well by first escalating the situation (saying that non-natives could apply for all jobs except the non-gazetted jobs) and then giving concessions by amending the rules.

What was surprising (or perhaps not) was the timing of the decision to form new domicile laws of J-K. At a time when the entire country was grappling with the fight against COVID-19 situation, the union home ministry thought it is appropriate to introduce the new laws.

Notwithstanding this inappropriateness, the ministry’s logic might have been that given the COVID-19 restrictions, there would be little physical protests in the Valley against the notification. This analysis turned out to be accurate. Recall that even the release of two high profile political prisoners– former Chief Ministers Farooq Abdullah and Omar Abdullah who were in detention under the stringent public safety act – was also timed with the COVID-19 outbreak.

What would have been an otherwise momentous occasion for the Kashmiris, especially the supporters of the National Conference to come to the streets, to display their unhappiness with the central government turned out to be a non-affair.

Implications

The fact that new laws, including domicile laws, are implemented in J-K shows that the central government is not keen on reversing its August 5 decision of doing away with the state’s special status. By the time there is a new government in New Delhi, J-K might be well-integrated, legally speaking, into the rest of the Union which would make going back far more difficult.

However, this doesn’t rule out the eventual return of J-K’s statehood. As a matter of fact, the leaders in New Delhi have time and again reiterated that J-K might get back its statehood one day. New laws currently being introduced in J-K only tinker with its special status, not statehood.

Thus, by having made it very clear that special status is non-negotiable, New Delhi will bring all the focus of J-K’s political class around the issue of statehood, an outcome that New Delhi has no reason to dislike.

The author, Dr. Happymon Jacob is an associate Professor at Centre for International Politics, Organization and Disarmament in Jawaharlal Nehru University.