Every view has a counter, every opinion can be different, and at News18, we value each one of them. To present these views and opinions to you – the reader – is not just a job, but also our duty.
News18 kicks off a new series, Sticking Point, which will have prominent opinion makers from across India and the world face off on varied topics through their written words. Sticking Point will be the voice of diverse authors, as they debate on a particular subject of national and international importance, and more importantly, one that enlightens our reader.
The recent passage of two bills related to Jammu and Kashmir — the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2023 — has sparked a flurry of debate and discussion. While the government hails it as a historic step towards ensuring justice and representation for underprivileged communities, critics raise concerns about potential unintended consequences.
The Reservation Bill amends the existing reservation policy in Jammu and Kashmir by replacing the term “weak and underprivileged classes” with “other backward classes,” aligning it with the national definition. This move is expected to benefit a wider range of communities and ensure greater social and educational equity. Additionally, the bill proposes to increase the reservation for Scheduled Tribes to 9 per cent, bringing it on par with other Indian states.
The Reorganisation Bill seeks to address the issue of under-representation of displaced persons from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Kashmiri migrants in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly. It proposes to nominate two members from the Kashmiri migrant community and one from the PoK displaced community to the Assembly. This move is seen as an attempt to provide a voice to these marginalised communities and address their long-standing grievances.
Both bills, despite seeking to benefit residents of Jammu and Kashmir, have nonetheless met with a myriad of serious reactions and concerns. The proposed Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Amendment Bill has ignited a passionate debate among political leaders, analysts, and the general public. While the aim of the bill, to provide political representation to marginalised communities, is commendable, concerns regarding its potential impact on democratic principles have surfaced. Some argue that the increased number of nominated seats in the Assembly could undermine the democratic process and dilute the power of elected representatives. Others express apprehension about potential demographic changes and the potential for further marginalisation of existing communities.
Former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir and National Conference President, Farooq Abdullah, pointed out the flaws in Amit Shah blaming India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s decision to declare a ceasefire during the 1947 Indo-Pak War. He argued that the ceasefire was necessary to prevent the strategically important regions of Poonch and Rajouri from falling into Pakistani hands.
Speaking at a function in Srinagar, Abdullah stated, “If Nehru hadn’t ordered the ceasefire at that time, both Poonch and Rajouri would have been part of Pakistan today. We wouldn’t have had Pir Panjal (mountain range) under our control, and the water resources of Chenab would have been lost to us.” He further emphasised that Nehru’s decision, despite facing criticism at the time, proved to be strategically sound in the long run. “People criticised Nehru for the ceasefire, but it was a well-calculated decision. We owe him a debt of gratitude for saving Poonch and Rajouri,” Abdullah added.
Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saugata Ray was aggressively critical of Amit Shah’s tenure as home minister, given that the abrogation of Article 370 and division of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh into Union Territories has resulted in the absence of a Legislative Assembly. He highlighted a very prominent issue that was seemingly being ignored. There have been no elections in Jammu and Kashmir for 5 years. Political analyst Zaffar Choudhary raised the crucial issue of the lieutenant governor’s nomination powers. He emphasised how these powers, if unchecked, could significantly impact the public mandate. While acknowledging the alignment with the delimitation commission’s recommendations, Choudhary interpreted the bill as a possible preparation for assembly elections.
M.Y. Tarigami, a senior CPI(M) leader, took a strong stance against the bill, calling it “unconstitutional and illegitimate.” He urged the government to wait for the Supreme Court’s verdict before proceeding. He criticised the lack of dedicated seats for Kashmiri Pandits and PoJK refugees, suggesting they should have been granted voting rights instead of relying on nominated representatives. Justice Hasnain Masoodi, a National Conference MP, expressed caution and questioned the timing of the bill. He contended that introducing it before the Supreme Court hearing on the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act is inappropriate.
Muzaffar Iqbal, a spokesperson of Jammu Kashmir National Conference, is of the opinion that “these bills offer nothing new, as Kashmiri Pandits were always part of the State legislation. It is merely a gimmick for upcoming Lok Sabha elections, and to cover up for zero ground action in Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370 despite big promises.”
Another JKNC spokesperson Tanvir Sadiq, expressed his support for providing reservations to unrepresented communities but raised concerns about the dissolution of the upper house, which previously served as a platform for their political representation. He highlighted the specific communities that benefited from reserved seats in the upper house, such as Paharis, Gujjars, and Kashmiri Pandits. Sadiq’s statement implied that the proposed amendment, while aiming to provide representation through nominated MLAs, might not adequately address the concerns of these communities. He suggested that the dissolution of the upper house has created a gap in their political representation, and relying solely on nominated members might not be an effective solution.
This statement adds a new dimension to the ongoing debate surrounding the amendment. It highlights the importance of considering the previously established structures for representation and ensuring that any new measures do not inadvertently disadvantage marginalised communities.
An anonymous politician, though supportive of political empowerment for marginalised communities, warned against the potential subversion of the public mandate. They fear that nominated members with voting rights could hand partial control of the J&K Legislative Assembly to the Central government.
In conclusion, the proposed bill faces a multitude of perspectives. While the intention of representing marginalised communities is appreciated, concerns about the lieutenant governor’s power and potential manipulation of the democratic process through nominated members remain unresolved.
The implementation of these bills will have far-reaching consequences for the political landscape and social fabric of Jammu and Kashmir. It is crucial to carefully monitor their impact and address any unforeseen challenges. Continued dialogue and consultation with all stakeholders, including the affected communities, is essential to ensure a smooth and successful implementation. Only time will tell whether these bills will truly act as a beacon of hope or trigger unforeseen challenges for the region.
This report is a brief overview of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation and Reorganisation Bills. Further research and analysis is needed to fully understand their potential impact and implications.
Yana Mir is a journalist and social activist. She is the Vice-President of All JK Youth Society. She tweets at @MirYanaSY. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
