J&K 'integral' reforms

Land law changes could founder on detail

The Centre’s move to alter land acquisition laws in the year-old Union Territory (UT) of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), ending the exclusive rights of permanent residents over land, could be viewed as a key step towards integrating this troubled region with the rest of the country and emphasising to the international community Kashmir’s legal status as an integral part of India. This move marks the logical conclusion of the reading down of Articles 370 and 35-A in August last year. The Centre has revoked 12 land laws and modified 26 others and, since they have been made with little reference to the people it will impact, many devils may reside in the detail. But there are some broad concerns that mark this move paving the way for non-UT residents to buy land in J&K. 

First, as with open land markets elsewhere in India, the explosion of speculation and soaring land prices, especially in a piece of territory where land is scarce, remains a strong possibility. If the Bharatiya Janata Party government is serious about fulfilling its stated mandate of bringing “development” to the UT — and to counter the charge that it is seeking demographic change in this Muslim-majority region — it needs to urgently check this speculative element in land deals. One way of doing so could be placing riders on purchases as, say, Himachal Pradesh does, by registering property only after the buyer has spent a specified amount of time in the state. In that context, restrictions on using agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes are sensible, but the real point of concern here is the rights of smallholders. J&K was one of the handful of states that succeeded in land reforms and redistribution after independence. 

Under chief minister Sheikh Abdullah, the state passed the Big Land Estates Abolition Act, which placed a ceiling on land holdings and transferred excess land to thousands of tillers, a move that has played no small part in J&K’s relatively high ranking on India’s human development indicators. This, however, is one of the handful of Acts that have been abolished and potentially allows big business and rich individuals to create landed monopolies. Even more concerning is the proviso that land can be transferred in favour of a person or institute for the promotion of health care and education. Such a discretionary system amounts to invitation for any Central dispensation to succumb to the blandishments of ideological cronies. No less worrying is the enhancement of the rights of the armed forces, a controversial institution in the UT, to requisition an area for operational and training purposes (though only corps commanders and above can take this decision).

All told, this positive move comes with many negative consequences that the Centre should fix before it implements the changes in neighbouring Ladakh. The move also needs to be followed up by opening up the market for jobs, and therefore talent, to non-residents, without which no genuine development can take place. Finally, if the Centre is convinced that its policies help the people of J&K, it should put its popularity to the test by taking its mandate to the people. Imposing changes without reference to the people undermines all the ostensible claims that the government has made for altering the status of J&K.