J&K domicile

Since Article 370 Move, 34 From Outside J&K Have Bought Land in UT: Government

This number has purportedly increased since December 2021, when the Union home ministry told the Rajya Sabha that “seven plots of land” have been purchased by persons from outside J&K.

New Delhi: Thirty four people from outside Jammu and Kashmir have bought property in the Union Territory since the Union government read down Article 370 in August, 2019, the government has said.

Union Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai said this in a reply in Lok Sabha on March 29.

“As per the information provided by the government of Jammu and Kashmir, 34 people from outside the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir have bought properties in the UT of J&K after abrogation of Article 370,” Rai said to a written question.

The Article 370, which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir and also barred people from outside from acquiring property in J&K, was read down in a surprise move by the Narendra Modi government on August 5, 2019. Before this, only permanent residents of the erstwhile state could own property, including land, in the region.

Also read: Modi Govt’s New Land Policy for J&K Overturns 7 Decades of Land Reform

Rai said the sale of property took place in Jammu, Reasi, Udhampur and Ganderbal districts.

This number has purportedly increased since December 2021, when the Union home ministry informed the Rajya Sabha that “seven plots of land” have been purchased by persons from outside J&K and “all are located in the Jammu division,” The Hindu noted in its report.

In October 2020, the Union government notified the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Adaptation of Central Laws) Third Order, under which no domicile or permanent resident certificate was required to purchase non-agricultural land in the Union Territory.

The move was severely criticised by the mainstream political opposition in J&K.

The Peoples Alliance for Gupkar Declaration, a coalition group of several political parties which has vowed to fight for the restoration of J&K’s special status, termed the MHA order as a “huge betrayal” of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

‘Betrayed’: In Jammu, Growing Regret Over Support for Scrapping of Article 370

With the new land laws, and the fear of backlash when it comes to organising protests, many among those who celebrated the felling of Article 370 are reconsidering their stance.

Srinagar: On August 5, 2019, Rahul Sharma, a resident of Kathua, was ecstatic. He and his friends distributed sweets to celebrate the scrapping of Articles 370 and 35A of the constitution that granted a special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

As most parts of the Jammu division erupted in celebration, Sharma, who then called himself a “hardcore” Modi supporter, said he felt it was the beginning of what Prime Minister Narendra Modi called “achhe din” for the people of J&K.

Fifteen months later, Sharma feels apologetic and disgusted. “We do not want ‘achhe din’. We want ‘buray din’, back,” he said. “It is for the first time that somebody wants to impose ‘achhe din’ on the people and the people are not willing to accept them,” he said, calling the new land laws and the post-August 5 amendments in J&K a human rights violation. “First, it was happening with Kashmiris, now it is happening with the people of Jammu as well.”

Sharma is not the only Modi or BJP supporter in the Jammu region who previously supported the scrapping of Article 370 and has changed their stance now. Tanya Bandral, an MSC in Chemistry who also tutors students in Jammu’s vicinity, said she was a steadfast supporter of the the BJP. “I celebrated the move,” she said, “but I now regret having done so.”

Bandral had been hopeful that the move would be beneficial for Jammu. “But 15 months down the line, I feel betrayed. We have been ruined. Our jobs are gone, our land is gone.”

Like Bandral and Sharma, many residents in Jammu feel cheated by the ruling party. Bandral said that the BJP exploited their “nationalistic feelings” and “patriotism”. With every new law that the Union government has implemented in Jammu and Kashmir, resentment among the people of the Jammu grew, she said.

“Now, I realise the revocation of Article 370 was wrong. Although there should have been some amendments to the law, the whole law should not have been scrapped,” Bandral said.

Sharma said that with every passing day, the consensus amongst people in Jammu is growing. “Our eyes have opened, we discuss and conclude that we want Article 370 back,” he said.

Like Sharma, Bandral said her outlook on the revocation of Article 370 has changed completely. “We want all those rights back that were guaranteed by Article 370. All my friends who supported the abrogation, regret their decision now,” she said.

Also read: ‘We’re Only Used to Garner Votes’: Why Kashmiri Pandits Have Lost Faith in the BJP

The Bharatiya Janata Party, which had carried out an extensive ‘Mission 44+’ election campaign in Jammu and Kashmir for the 2014 assembly elections, had promised to scrap Article 370 in its election manifesto.

In 2014, Modi had addressed a mammoth election rally in Kathua, Sharma’s hometown. “It was a cold winter morning, December 12, 2014,” recalls Sharma.

Sharma, a law graduate at that time, was enthusiastic as he rushed to attend the rally at the sports stadium early in the morning at 8 am. Four hours later, PM Modi arrived at the rally. Sharma, who had never voted for BJP before, said, “That day, I made up my mind to vote for Modi. I turned into a hardcore Modi supporter,” he said. PM Modi’s speech, he said, was very motivating and progressive. “Modi spoke about black money, Lokpal, and poverty. But all that was a mirage.”

Satish Vidrohi, a social activist in Jammu, said that the resentment against the removal of Article 370 was increasing every day. Vidrohi believes that the initial celebration in Jammu was purely owing to the fact that the BJP had exploited the raw nationalistic sentiments and patriotism of the people of Jammu. “There is resentment, but there is also fear,” he said.

The general perception among the people that this correspondent spoke to in Jammu, was that the current administration is not going to permit protests against the scrapping of the erstwhile state’s constitutional status and that anyone who dared to step out onto the streets would be arrested.

Dheeraj, a law student at Jammu University, said that the administration was arresting those who displayed any opposition to the scrapping of Article 370. “Recently, a National Conference meeting was scheduled in Jammu and they arrested many activists of the party. Anybody who speaks about the restoration of Article 370 is arrested.”

He also alleged that there has been a witch-hunt against intellectuals. “That is why there is no resentment visible in Jammu,” Dheeraj said.

Vidrohi also believes that there is growing resentment among right-wing activists as well. However, he said that they do not show resentment due to political compulsions. “I have had a lot of closed-door discussions with my rightwing friends and they heartily express their feelings against the abrogation of the Article 370,” he said. Giving an example of his father, Vidrohi said that his father supported the removal of Article 370 throughout, but now he “feels ashamed”.

He said that murmurs of dissent against the scrapping of Article 370 were on the rise amongst the youth in Jammu as well. A plethora of organisations including SCST organisations, Jakarsiya, Ambedkar Yuva Sangathan, and Bhim army were planning a joint march against the new land laws and post-August 5 amendments to the laws.

Revoking Article 370 of the constitution was a key part of the BJP’s core agenda and has always struck an emotional chord with its rank and file after its ideologue Syama Prasad Mookerjee died in a Jammu and Kashmir jail in 1953 to protest the state’s special status and demand its complete integration with the Indian Union.

Spearheading the agitation to scrap Article 370, Mookerjee had entered the state and was arrested. His presence was deemed illegal as outsiders were then required a permit to enter it.

Mookerjee’s death, considered mysterious by the BJP and its Hindutva allies, and his slogan “ek desh mein do vidhan, do pradhan aur do nishan nahi chalenge” (One country can’t have two constitutions, two prime ministers, and two national emblems) became a rallying cry for the party.

Also read: J&K Police Suspend Info Gathering Exercise in Jammu’s Muslim-Majority Areas After Outcry

Right from its Jana Sangh days, the saffron party blamed Article 370 for separatist activities, militancy, and alleged discrimination against Jammu and Ladakh regions in the state.

In Jammu, since the times of Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Dheeraj said, the RSS was working and building a consensus among the people that Article 370 was “anti-people”. He said, “RSS succeeded in propaganda and distortion of historical facts due to which a lot of ‘pseudo nationalism’ emerged in Jammu.”

He said the people in Jammu started looking at things through commercial prejudices. “They supported abrogation of Article 370 thinking that they will teach Kashmiris a lesson while others did it due to raw nationalist feelings.”

Dheeraj said that Kashmiris were at least “fighting” to safeguard their rights while people in Jammu were stuck in raw nationalism.

“Now after the amendments in-laws and new land laws, people are understanding what is happening. Even BJP and rightwing activists understand what is happening but they are not able to express publicly.”

He said that recently a narrative was created that Muslims had received land under the Roshni Act and it was called “land jihad”, while in fact only 11% of land under the Roshni Act was possessed by Muslims in Jammu.

Vikas Bhadoriya, an LLM student at Jammu University, said that the people of Jammu celebrated the removal thinking that it would create opportunities for them. “We thought it will give opportunities. People thought they will get more security vis-à-vis land and jobs but exactly the opposite has happened.”

He said that the people of Jammu want Article 370 back with “amendments”. “All the securities under Article 370 should be given back to us to save our identity,” he said and added that a movement was emerging in Jammu. “We are planning a J&K Swabiman Yatra (Self Respect Yatra) across J&K.”

Also read: Kashmir’s Big Question: What Will Joe Biden’s Win Mean for Human Rights in the UT?

Like many in Jammu, Bhadoriya said that there was an atmosphere of fear. “People fear that they will be arrested and lodged in jails.”

Gulchan Singh. Photo: Special Arrangement

Gulchan Singh Charak, a former minister and president of the Dogra Sadar Sabha, said that the scrapping of Article 370 was welcomed by his party. However, he said, his party wanted a unique model to safeguard the interests of the people of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh. “We asked them (Centre) for a good model and also suggested that they hold discussions in three parts of the erstwhile state.”

Speaking about the new land laws, he said that it came as a surprise for people of Jammu. “It is a breach of trust as the prime minister and the home minister had given assurances about safeguarding the unique identity of all the three parts of the state.”

Charak was arrested almost a fortnight after Article 370 was scrapped when he was scheduled to address a press conference to put forth suggestions for safeguarding the interests of the people in Jammu.

Meanwhile, Rahul Sharma said that he regrets voting for Modi and celebrating the developments on August 5, 2019. “I apologise to myself and the people of Jammu and Kashmir,” he said, and expressed hope for a joint effort by the people of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh for the restoration of Article 370 and safeguards for all the rights of the people.

West Pakistani Refugees Can Now Vote, Contest Elections in J&K

Under the legal framework existing in the erstwhile state, only state subjects were eligible to vote and contest in assembly and local bodies elections.

Srinagar: Electoral politics in Jammu and Kashmir was the exclusive domain of its permanent residents before the BJP-led Central government unilaterally scrapped Article 370 in August 2019.

Like its jobs and its land, Jammu and Kashmir’s elections have also been opened up for “outsiders” – those who were not permanent residents of J&K before August 5 last year – as any Indian citizen can now become eligible to vote or contest in the assembly, panchayat and municipal elections by fulfilling the condition of being an “ordinarily resident” of the Union territory.

With doors being opened for non-natives, refugees from West Pakistan, who have been residing in J&K for seven decades, will be eligible to vote in the forthcoming district development council elections and by-polls for panchayats and urban local bodies. This will be the first time they will be voting for any local body elections in the erstwhile state.

Position before August 5

Under the legal framework existing in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, its permanent residents were only entitled to vote or contest in elections to the assembly and local bodies after enrolling themselves as electors. The statutes governing polls in the erstwhile state disqualified any person from being registered as a voter in the Jammu and Kashmir assembly and local bodies elections if he or she was not a permanent resident of J&K.

But there was no restriction on any Indian citizen, registered as a voter anywhere, to contest Lok Sabha polls in J&K.

Constitutional changes impact on electoral politics

The constitutional and legal changes enacted by the Centre last year scrapped the precondition of being a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir for registering as an elector for the assembly and local bodies elections in the Union territory.

Now anyone enrolled as an elector in J&K can vote or fight assembly elections anywhere in the Union territory and local polls in his or her respective panchayat or urban local body. The refugees from West Pakistan, who were not able to contest state polls in Jammu and Kashmir, have become eligible to vote and contest all elections in J&K by virtue of being an “ordinarily resident” of the Union territory.

Also read: To Contest or Not: Gupkar Alliance In a Bind About Participation in J&K DDC Polls

“The West Pakistan refugees can vote in elections as they are citizens of India and are residing here as per definition of the Representation of the Peoples Act,” state election commissioner Kewal Kumar Sharma told The Wire. Lawyer and BJP spokesman Sunil Sethi said that anyone registered as a voter could contest elections in J&K.

“A person who constitutes electoral college will be in a position to contest elections. So any person who is voter can contest,” he said. Unlike parliamentary polls, there is a legal binding that a person contesting assembly polls anywhere in a state or Union territory must be an elector of that state or Union territory.

So those who are “ordinarily residents” of J&K can contest assembly polls in the erstwhile state after enrolling themselves as voters.

Who are “ordinarily residents” of J&K?

The conditions prescribed for enrolment as an elector in a constituency or state or Union territory is that the person must be an “ordinarily resident” of that constituency or state or Union territory. The concept of ‘ordinary residence’ has not been defined clearly anywhere in the statutes. However, some administrative instructions by the Election Commission and judicial procurements define “ordinary residence.”

Kashmiri women walk past concertina wire laid across a road during restrictions after the scrapping of the special constitutional status for Kashmir by the Centre, in Srinagar, August 20, 2019. Photo: Reuters/Adnan Abidi

In Dr Manmohan Singh vs. the Election Commission of India & Others, the Guwahati high court defined the term ‘ordinary resident’ as a usual and normal resident of that place. The residence must be permanent in character and not temporary or casual and it must be for a considerable time.

According to the verdict, the resident must have an intention to reside there permanently. The Supreme Court has held that the person has to have an intention to stay in that place for a considerable period of time. Based on an interpretation of rulings by courts, the Election Commission has clarified that such a person need not be eating there, but must be sleeping regularly at that place.

Also read: The Second Sale Deed of Jammu and Kashmir

As per ECI guidelines, any document like current passbook, ration card, passport, driving license or income tax assessment order, latest rent agreement, latest water/telephone/electricity/gas connection bill for that address, either in the name of the applicant or that of his or her immediate relation like parents etc. or any post/letter/mail delivered through Indian postal department in the applicant’s name can be used as a proof for establishing the fact of being an ordinarily resident of that place for voter registration.

The poll-body instructions state that homeless persons or those living in sheds or pavement dwellers, who do not possess any documentary proof of ordinary residence are eligible for enrolment in the electoral roll, provided they are ordinarily residing there, irrespective of whether they reside at a private property or pavement. “In such case, the booth level officer will visit the address given in application for enrolment as voter for more than one night to ascertain that the homeless person actually sleeps at the given place,” the ECI said.

According to the poll-body, the students residing as tenants at the place of study will have the option to get themselves registered as electors either at their native places where their parents or guardians reside or at the address of landlord where they are residents for the period they are pursuing their studies. “The courses pursued by the said students should be recognised by central/state govt or boards/universities/deemed universities defined under relevant Acts and such courses should be of not less than one year’s duration,” the ECI states.

However, service voters i.e. members of the armed forces are registered as voters at their native place and not at their place of postings. As per the special election-related safeguards for states or Union territories under The Representation of Peoples Act, a person registered as voter anywhere in the country can contest Lok Sabha elections from any constituency with the exception of three seats – one each in Assam, Lakshwadeep and Sikkim.

A person must be an elector of these constituencies to be able to contest Lok Sabha elections from them. This restriction was not applicable to Jammu and Kashmir as any Indian citizen, registered as a voter in any state or Union territory could contest Lok Sabha elections from the erstwhile state.

Also read: How the Centre Effected Changes in J&K Laws Through Executive Orders

Similarly, Article 371F empowered the parliament to make laws to reserve seats for different communities living in Sikkim. As many as 12 seats were reserved for persons of Sikkimese Bhutia-Lepcha origin, two for Scheduled Castes of castes specified in the Representation of Sikkim Subjects Act, 1974 and one for Sangha (where only monks from registered monasteries in the state could contest elections). Under the special constitutional provisions, MLAs from the Tuensang district of Nagaland were elected by a regional council for a period of 10 years after formation of the State.”

The Second Sale Deed of Jammu and Kashmir

Several other states like Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram enjoy similar protections in the form of several constitutional or statutory safeguards.

The recent gazette notification, issued by the Ministry Of Home Affairs (MHA), has in one fell swoop, removed all preconditions for the purchase and sale of land in the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

While the notification has created an uproar in Kashmir, with the Peoples’ Alliance for Gupkar Declaration (PAGD) openly castigating the notification as unacceptable and nefarious in nature, Jammu too has expressed grave concerns about this move by the Centre.

Former chief minister Omar Abdullah in an interview went as far as to say, “This adds to the fear of demographic changes. Today’s order has made it clear that they want to wipe out the character of a Muslim majority state. The people of Jammu would be more unhappy with this land ownership system. Before it impacts the people of Kashmir, it will impact people in Jammu.”

While repealing the J&K Land Alienation Act, 1938 and Big Landed Estate Abolition Act, 1950, the notification makes amendments to the Land Grants Act, 1960 and the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 by removing the “Permanent Resident” requirement for the sale and purchase of land in J&K. Repealing the landmark Big Estates Abolition Act was a rather ironic move as the Act, which conferred land rights to the tillers in Jammu and Kashmir, was believed to be one of the most progressive pieces of land reform ever initiated in India.

The prerequisite of being a “state subject” for the sale and purchase of land was the result of a long and pressing demand by the people of Jammu and Kashmir, which the erstwhile maharaja had agreed to, keeping in mind the disadvantaged socio-economic backwardness of the local populace in the region. By scrapping this requirement, the Centre has added insult to the injury already inflicted on the people in the state.

Also read: The New Land Ownership Laws May Unite Kashmiris Across All Territories

How the demand for state subjects arose

The incorporation of these protectionist provisions can be traced back to an agitation led by Kashmiri Pandits, who were far more educated and politically conscious in comparison with the Muslim majority community in the princely state of J&K.

The Kashmiri Pandits were opposed to the hiring of Punjabis in the state administration, a trend which had been initiated by the first maharaja of the state, Gulab Singh, when he had appointed a Punjabi khatri named Dewan Jawala Sahai to an important post in his government. Dewan Sahai later went on to become prime minister under the Dogra rule.

During this time, Jammu and Kashmir recorded a massive influx of Punjabis, who started to occupy almost all the high ranking positions in the Dogra government. As their sway in the administrative setup increased, extensive land grants were extended to the Punjabis as they were placed on important chairs of trusts. Cementing their influence in areas of authority and occupation of land, the Punjabis began to dominate commerce as well.

A shikara in Kashmir’s Dale Lake. Photo: AzmanJumat/Flickr, CC BY 2.0

Concerned by this wave of immigration and fearing relegation to the margins, Kashmiri Pandits raised a banner of revolt. Their agitation was actively supported by the Hindu Dogras of Jammu as they were the first to reap the benefits of modern education, long before Muslims in the Valley became politically conscious.

While in Jammu, the agitation was more forceful and sprouted into a full-fledged Dogra vs Punjabis controversy, in Kashmir, the Kashmiri Pandits managed to acquire subtle assistance from the British officers in their opposition to ‘outsiders’. After a long and arduous agitation, Maharaja Hari Singh introduced the state subject law on April 20, 1927. The definition of the term “state subject” was a broad one, which conferred equal representation to all the sections of the population be it the Kashmiris, Dogras or Punjabis.

It was this state subject law which manifested in the form of ‘permanent residents’ after Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India and continued to protect the land and labour rights of the local population. The post-independence period also ushered in new challenges for the local populace which found itself caught in a conflict and earned the unwanted sobriquet of being a “nuclear flashpoint”.

Also read: Anyone From Anywhere Across India Can Now Buy Land in J&K

The prevalence of conflict further buttressed the case for uninterrupted protection of jobs and land rights, as had been granted by the maharaja, keeping in mind the disadvantaged socio-economic position of the state vis-à-vis the rest of the country. The removal of the protection fo land rights that people in the state previously enjoyed might spell doom and the local population will not be able to fend off the big land sharks from outside Jammu and Kashmir.

Constitutional safeguards other states enjoy

Jammu and Kashmir is not the only state which confers protection to the land and jobs of the local populace. Several other states also enjoy similar protections in the form of constitutional or statutory safeguards.

The state of Himachal Pradesh, under several laws, restricts the sale and transfer of land to its ‘bonafide residents’ – those who have resided in the state for a period of 20 years. However certain exceptions can be made by the state while making land transfers to outsiders, considered on a case-by-case basis.

In 2019, the Supreme Court, while deciding a petition on the state of Meghalaya, ruled that the indigenous population have full rights over their land and resources and recognised their sole right to grant permission for mining. Like Meghalaya, several other states, under the Sixth Schedule of the constitution, enjoy similar protections with regard to their land rights.

Similarly, under Article 371-F of the constitution, the people of Sikkim enjoy discretionary powers with regard to the purchase of the property in the state. The laws are even harsher in the tribal areas of Sikkim, where only tribals can purchase the land falling in these belts. Once again, exemptions can be made for the establishment of designated industrial belts for regulated penetration of benefits of industrialisation.

In Nagaland, the people with protections derived from Article 371-A are free to determine the conditions of who can and cannot purchase or transfer land other than its ‘indigenous inhabitants’. Likewise, under Article 371-G of the constitution, the Mizoram legislative assembly is conferred with special privileges to restrict and regulate the ownership and transfer of land rights in the state.

Also read: Modi Govt’s New Land Policy for J&K Overturns 7 Decades of Land Reform

Arunachal Pradesh, Jharkhand and 10 other states falling under the Fifth Schedule of the constitution have been bestowed with discretionary powers with regard to imposing restrictions on the transfer and purchase of the lands in the respective states keeping in view the local tribal populations.

Having said this all, even the newly created Union territory of Ladakh is being considered for special status under the Sixth Schedule, thereby extending constitutional safeguards to its culture, jobs and land ownership rights. All these aforementioned instances provide ample breeding ground for the population of Jammu and Kashmir to be concerned about the selective manner in which the Centre has removed these protections while others continue to enjoy them uninterruptedly.

A jawan stands guard during the shutdown in Srinagar on October 3. Photo: PTI

Backtracking on promises

The Centre has argued that these safeguards were roadblocks for peace, progress and development in Jammu and Kashmir.

The Central government has also maintained that the removal of these “impediments” would encourage investment, this even as it, in the same breath, it continues to support these safeguards in states which enjoy constitutional safeguards under Article 371 and several other provisions.

The Centre had previously, on multiple occasions, assured the people of J&K that their jobs and land rights would be protected at any cost and that the state would have a better domicile policy than anywhere else in the country.

Immediately after Article 370 was revoked, PM Modi promised the people of J&K that they would witness the dawn of a new politics, prosperity and development and every commoner in J&K expected him to stick to his words. Propriety and principled statecraft demand that New Delhi refrain from forcing its vision of development on the newly created Union territory as this might lead to instability again, while all other priorities take a backseat. The Centre should instead conduct legislative assembly elections and let people have a say in their future.

More than two centuries ago, in 1846, Maharaj Gulab Singh executed the Treaty of Amritsar with the British East India Company, whereby Kashmir was sold to him in lieu of seventy five lakh nanakshahi rupees and he carved out the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. This treaty is infamously remembered as the “Sale Deed” of Kashmir. Let us hope the Centre rethinks what locals will see as the second sale deed of J&K, where the inhabitants of the land have no say in shaping their destinies.

B.M. Amin is a lawyer.

Anyone From Anywhere Across India Can Now Buy Land in J&K

It is not immediately clear whether agricultural land would fall within the ambit of the new order issued by the Union home ministry.

Srinagar: Anyone from across India can now own land in Jammu and Kashmir, with the Centre in one of its most significant moves since the reading down of Article 370 last year issuing an order to affect changes in land ownership rights in the newly carved out union territory.

The move by the government of India comes a day after the BJP, which rules at the Centre, won the bitterly contested Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) polls in Leh.

The Union Ministry of Home Affairs introduced the changes relating to the land laws through an order called the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Adaptation of Central Laws) Third Order, 2020, drawing a strong reaction from political parties.

Former J&K chief minister and National Conference vice-president Omar Abdullah tweeted that the amendments were unacceptable.

Unacceptable amendments to the land ownership laws of J&K. Even the tokenism of domicile has been done away with when purchasing non-agricultural land & transfer of agricultural land has been made easier. J&K is now up for sale & the poorer small land holding owners will suffer.

— Omar Abdullah (@OmarAbdullah) October 27, 2020

Omar said the issuance of the amended land rules notification smacks of BJP’s “cheap politics and deceit.” “Interestingly the Center waited till the elections to LAHDC (in Ladakh) had concluded and the BJP had won a majority before putting Ladakh also up for sale. This is what Ladakhis got for trusting the assurances of the BJP,” he said.

There is uncertainty so far on whether these rules will also apply to Ladakh. “I don’t know what would be worse,” Omar said – that Ladakh too has been “betrayed” or that this treatment is reserved for J&K.

There’s much confusion about whether Ladakh has been included in the new land ownership order. I don’t know what would be worse: that Ladakh has also been betrayed by the Centre or that only J&K has been put up for sale, thus betraying the centre’s true intentions & bias

— Omar Abdullah (@OmarAbdullah) October 27, 2020

While the Order comes into force with immediate effect, according to it, the General Clauses Act, 1897 “applies for the interpretation of this Order as it applies for the interpretation of laws in force in the territory of India.”

Under the Order, a number of amendments have been carried out in the Jammu and Kashmir Development Act to allow ‘outsiders’ to buy land.

Prior to the August 5 last year, when the government of India scrapped Articles 370 and 35A, only permanent residents of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir were eligible to own property including land in the region, and apply for jobs.

Earlier this year, the Centre scrapped the Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) and replaced it with domicile certificate, allowing outsiders to apply for jobs in J&K. Under the Article 35A, the erstwhile J&K Legislative Assembly was empowered to define who permanent residents were and grant exclusive rights to them over land, property and jobs.