People on the streets in J&K debate what lies ahead after SC passes order on Article 370

Srinagar: Amidst the long-drawn-out continuing deliberations in the Supreme Court entering the fourteenth day on the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A in the region of Jammu and Kashmir, the crescendo of far and against discussions has ignited curiosity about the impending judgment's outcome of the honourable Court that is likely to be placed in coming couple of weeks. 

The impact of this ongoing deliberation in the Supreme Court has not only captured the imagination of the populace nationwide and the media but resonates even more deeply within the heart of Jammu and Kashmir itself.  Social media is full of comments and discussions in cafes, and street corners of Srinagar are growing.

Within the streets of Srinagar, a prevailing query echoes among the masses: Will the pre-5 August 2019 status be reinstated in Jammu and Kashmir, or will the Supreme Court refrain from overturning the parliamentary resolution, instead directing an adherence to the promise of restoring statehood and conducting elections in the Kashmir Valley?

The discourse has escalated notably following the August 29 hearing, during which the Chief Justice of India posed a pointed question to the Solicitor General regarding the timeline for the reinstatement of statehood in Jammu and Kashmir and the projected schedule for elections.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, in his submission, affirmed that union territory status is transitory and not perpetual. He pledged to present a positive statement in subsequent days concerning Jammu and Kashmir's future status while underlining that Ladakh would continue as a union territory. Mehta acknowledged that Union Home Minister Amit Shah had expressed a similar sentiment during a parliamentary address.

What common people think about SC hearing on Article 370

Irshad Ahmed, a resident hailing from the border state, emphasized the necessity for a conclusive resolution, citing the enduring hardship faced predominantly by those residing in the border areas. 

"Regardless of the eventual decision," he stated, "what is paramount is a definitive settlement once and for all, for it is the border regions that bear the brunt most intensely."

Mushtaq (name changed), a local photographer, expressed an anticipation that the Supreme Court's ruling should incorporate the preservation of Jammu and Kashmir's Muslim-majority character, ensuring that the annulment of Article 370 does not undermine their distinct identities. He fervently hoped for Jammu, Kashmir reunification, and Ladakh as a single entity.

Davinder Kaur, a resident of Jammu and Kashmir, held that the abrogation of Article 370 signalled positive implications for gender equity. She contended that the prior provisions of Article 35A and 370 had perpetuated gender-based discrimination, particularly in the context of women who had married outside the region. Kaur framed her perspective within the context of human rights violations against women.

Rattan Lal (name changed), a businessman operating in Srinagar, staunchly advocated for the permanence of parliamentary decisions. He saw the abrogation of Article 370 as a catalyst for harmonious integration between the people of Kashmir and the rest of the nation, thereby fostering economic and social progress.

On the other hand, Mansoor (name changed) expressed a contrasting desire for the restoration of Article 370. He retained hope that the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court bench would move a reversal of the legislative changes, reinstating both Article 370 and Article 35A to their original form.

Combining sentiment within the Kashmir Valley is increasingly tilting towards the anticipation that the Supreme Court will chart a middle course, not mandating a reversal or modification of the parliamentary decisions but instead urging the central government to conduct elections within a stipulated timeframe, thereby restoring Jammu and Kashmir's statehood. Ladakh, meanwhile, is projected to remain a union territory, potentially garnering additional benefits.

In early this week's development, the Central government emphasized before the Supreme Court that the status of a union territory is not intended to be a permanent fixture. This assertion was prompted by the Constitution Bench's inquiry, directing the Attorney General and Solicitor General to seek clarifications from the government regarding the timeline for restoring Jammu and Kashmir's statehood after the region was bifurcated into the union territories of J&K and Ladakh in August 2019.

The Solicitor General informed the Constitution Bench that local bodies' government elections were conducted in 2020, signifying a historic first in Jammu and Kashmir's history. He underscored that the valley had experienced a marked absence of disturbances such as strikes, stone pelting, or curfews following the revocation of Article 370.

Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, at the helm of the Constitution Bench, emphasised that a union territory status could not be a perpetual arrangement. He asserted that the reinstatement of democracy held paramount importance. While acknowledging the imperative of national security, the Bench queried whether a stipulated period of Union control could be accommodated to restore stability in each region. 

Chief Justice further stressed that a roadmap from the Central government was required, signalling a return to statehood for Jammu and Kashmir. Whether such a provision could foster a state's return to a union territory framework for a limited duration remained central to the Bench's deliberation.

A five-judge Constitution Bench is presently adjudicating a series of petitions contesting the 2019 Presidential Order that revoked the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir's special status, simultaneously transforming it into two union territories.

In its affidavit submitted to the apex court, the Central government defended its decision to dilute Article 370, contending that this move had heralded unprecedented development, progress, security, and stability in the region. As the deliberations continue, the nation awaits the Supreme Court's nuanced verdict, which will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of Jammu and Kashmir's constitutional narrative.