Kashmir observes shutdown, fearing end of autonomy

Traders shout slogans from a police vehicle after being detained during Monday's march in Srinagar. (AFP)
Updated 07 August 2018
Follow

Kashmir observes shutdown, fearing end of autonomy

  • India’s Supreme Court adjourns hearing on Article 35A of constitution
  • A lesser-known nongovernmental organization, We the Citizens, has challenged the validity of these articles in the Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned hearing the petitions challenging the validity of Article 35A, which gives Jammu and Kashmir a special status in the Indian Constitution. 

The petitions will now be heard in the week beginning Aug. 27, said Chief Justice Dipak Misra. 

Monday was the second day for Kashmir valley observing a shutdown protesting any annulment of Article 35A, which confers special status to the permanent residents of Kashmir and bars people from outside the state from acquiring any immovable property in the state.

Besides Article 35A, Article 370 of the constitution grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

A lesser-known nongovernmental organization, We the Citizens, has challenged the validity of these articles in the Supreme Court. The fact that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is not opposing the petitions in the court has raised alarm bells among the people of Kashmir. 

“No court, whether in India or in Pakistan, has any jurisdiction to take decisions that can in any way affect the disputed status of J&K as its original citizens are yet to exercise the right to determine their final dispensation as promised by the UN and backed by India and Pakistan,’’ said the separatist leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq in a statement.

Yasin Khan, the chairperson of the Kashmir Economic Alliance, an amalgam of various trade and industrial bodies, said in a press statement that “for safeguarding our rights, we are even ready to give our blood. The attempts are being made to remove Article 35A through the court and we are not going to tolerate it.”

However, BJP leader Kavindra Gupta, former deputy chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, counters this argument and underlines that “the root causes of separatism in the valley are the Articles 35A and 370,” and that the BJP opposes these constitutional provisions.

Gupta told Arab News that the valley-based parties are using these special provisions in the constitution to run their political shops, “and we don’t want them to succeed in their designs.”

The People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the senior alliance partner of the BJP in the previous government in the Kashmir valley, said: “The ruling party in Delhi is using this issue not for the benefit of Kashmiris but to polarize the voters in mainstream India and win the general elections in 2019.”

Senior PDP leader Nizamuddin Bhat believes that the issue of abrogation of Article 35A and Article 370 did not do the BJP any good. 

“It has united all the Kashmiris, be it the separatist Hurriyat (All Parties Hurriyat Conference) or mainstream political parties. They are all now standing on one platform to protect the larger interest of the state.”

He added: “The BJP is having short-term national interest in mind by taking up this issue. The party just wants to capitalize electorally in the next general elections by raking up this emotional and divisive issue.”

Srinagar-based senior journalist Manzoor Ul-Hassan said Articles 35A and 370 are there to protect the basic constitutional rights of Kashmiri people, which makes Kashmir special by giving it an autonomy and a separate identity. 

“Any attempt to temper them will have far-reaching consequences and will be opposed by each and every Kashmiri,” Manzoor added.


Proposals on immigration enforcement flood into state legislatures, heightened by Minnesota action

Updated 16 January 2026
Follow

Proposals on immigration enforcement flood into state legislatures, heightened by Minnesota action

  • Oregon Democrats plan to introduce a bill to allow residents to sue federal officers for violating their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure

NASHVILLE, Tennessee: As Democrats across the country propose state law changes to restrict federal immigration officers after the shooting death of a protester in Minneapolis, Tennessee Republicans introduced a package of bills Thursday backed by the White House that would enlist the full force of the state to support President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Momentum in Democratic-led states for the measures, some of them proposed for years, is growing as legislatures return to work following the killing of Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer. But Republicans are pushing back, blaming protesters for impeding the enforcement of immigration laws.

Democratic bills seek to limit ICE

Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul wants New York to allow people to sue federal officers alleging violations of their constitutional rights. Another measure aims to keep immigration officers lacking judicial warrants out of schools, hospitals and houses of worship.
Oregon Democrats plan to introduce a bill to allow residents to sue federal officers for violating their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.
New Jersey’s Democrat-led Legislature passed three bills Monday that immigrant rights groups have long pushed for, including a measure prohibiting state law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy has until his last day in office Tuesday to sign or veto them.
California lawmakers are proposing to ban local and state law enforcement from taking second jobs with the Department of Homeland Security and make it a violation of state law when ICE officers make “indiscriminate” arrests around court appearances. Other measures are pending.
“Where you have government actions with no accountability, that is not true democracy,” Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco said at a news conference.
Democrats also push bills in red states
Democrats in Georgia introduced four Senate bills designed to limit immigration enforcement — a package unlikely to become law because Georgia’s conservative upper chamber is led by Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, a close Trump ally. Democrats said it is still important to take a stand.
“Donald Trump has unleashed brutal aggression on our families and our communities across our country,” said state Sen. Sheikh Rahman, an immigrant from Bangladesh whose district in suburban Atlanta’s Gwinnett County is home to many immigrants.
Democrats in New Hampshire have proposed numerous measures seeking to limit federal immigration enforcement, but the state’s Republican majorities passed a new law taking effect this month that bans “sanctuary cities.”
Tennessee GOP works with White House on a response
The bills Tennessee Republicans are introducing appear to require government agencies to check the legal status of all residents before they can obtain public benefits; secure licenses for teaching, nursing and other professions; and get driver’s licenses or register their cars.
They also would include verifying K-12 students’ legal status, which appears to conflict with a US Supreme Court precedent. And they propose criminalizing illegal entry as a misdemeanor, a measure similar to several other states’ requirements, some of which are blocked in court.
“We’re going to do what we can to make sure that if you’re here illegally, we will have the data, we’ll have the transparency, and we’re not spending taxpayer dollars on you unless you’re in jail,” House Speaker Cameron Sexton said at a news conference Thursday.
Trump administration sues to stop laws
The Trump administration has opposed any effort to blunt ICE, including suing local governments whose “sanctuary” policies limit police interactions with federal officers.
States have broad power to regulate within their borders unless the US Constitution bars it, but many of these laws raise novel issues that courts will have to sort out, said Harrison Stark, senior counsel with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
“There’s not a super clear, concrete legal answer to a lot of these questions,” he said. “It’s almost guaranteed there will be federal litigation over a lot of these policies.”
That is already happening.
California in September was the first to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration officers, from covering their faces on duty. The Justice Department said its officers won’t comply and sued California, arguing that the laws threaten the safety of officers who are facing “unprecedented” harassment, doxing and violence.
The Justice Department also sued Illinois last month, challenging a law that bars federal civil arrests near courthouses, protects medical records and regulates how universities and day care centers manage information about immigration status. The Justice Department claims the law is unconstitutional and threatens federal officers’ safety.
Targeted states push back
Minnesota and Illinois, joined by their largest cities, sued the Trump administration this week. Minneapolis and Minnesota accuse the Republican administration of violating free speech rights by punishing a progressive state that favors Democrats and welcomes immigrants. Illinois and Chicago claim “Operation Midway Blitz” made residents afraid to leave their homes.
Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin accused Minnesota officials of ignoring public safety and called the Illinois lawsuit “baseless.”