aingot.com) * * * Towards the end of February 2018, the government of Jammu and Kashmir took the decision to abrogate Article 35A, which prohibited non-permanent residents (NPRs) from owning land and prevented its use for a variety of activities other than agricultural purposes. Following the revocation of the Article, India has faced massive protests in the state of Kashmir, with people fearing the loss of property, employment and political participation. After the decision to scrap Article 35A, several political parties filed a review petition before the Supreme Court, which was finally heard on 5 August 2018. The matter was closed after the hearing was postponed to 23 August 2018, and was further postponed again to 24 September 2018. According to Article 175 of the Constitution, only the Speaker of Lok Sabha has the authority to close any debate or discussion on a bill, which was done by a two-third majority vote. The Speaker can pass or reject a motion to limit debate. When a discussion or debate is raised on a bill, the chairperson can accept or reject the debate, according to the rules set by the Speaker. While the Speaker's decision to close any debate can be questioned in the court, it can be done only by the government and not the opposition. This was the only decision that was taken by the Speaker. Since it does not belong to the ordinary business of the House, it is not known what the government's decision was. What is interesting is that after the revocation of Article 35A, Kashmiri politicians and civil society activists claimed that they had never been consulted before the government made the decision. One of the main points of contention was the use of Article 370 of the Constitution. Some suggested that Article 35A was inserted as part of Article 370, and hence its revocation required similar steps. However, a simple reading of Article 35A makes it clear that it was added as an amendment to Article 35 of the Constitution, which deals with the protection of the 'special position of the State'. Article 35A, therefore, was not added to Article 370, and can only be abrogated by the state legislature (Kashmir Legislative Assembly) like any other law. In 2013, the National Democratic Alliance government headed by then Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh moved a bill to amend Article 370. The bill was rejected by the legislature with twenty-seven votes in favour of and twenty-one against. Following this defeat, one would have expected that the government would have to initiate a fresh debate on Article 370. It is not certain why Article 35A was introduced as an amendment to Article 370, instead of being enacted separately. Some argue that the purpose of Article 35A was to grant special rights to Kashmiris for the purpose of employment and other benefits. However, other commentators, such as the University of Pennsylvania's Dibyesh Anand, argue that this was done to ensure greater control over the Kashmiri population by the Indian government. This claim is not as far-fetched as one would think, given the fact that Article 370 was first introduced to protect the special position of Jammu and Kashmir within India. With the revocation of Article 35A, the Kashmiri residents will now be able to purchase land in the state, as well as run hotels and even have factories. As for political participation, it is well known that the political leaders of Kashmir have been put under house arrest by the Indian government. In fact, in the last five years, the state has seen virtually no political activity at all. A detailed discussion about the pros and cons of this decision is outside the scope of this chapter. However, one interesting aspect of this issue that is worth discussing is how the decision was taken. India has been facing increasing violence from various Islamist groups, including al-Qaeda and Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. Most of these terrorists had their bases in Pakistan, where the Pakistan Army assisted them by providing shelter and logistical support. Several Pakistani intelligence officers were also directly involved in sponsoring these terrorists and groups. In June 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Kashmir and praised the efforts made by security forces to quell the rebellion. He emphasized the need for internal and external peace, which includes ensuring a strong dialogue between the government and the local population. These speeches by Modi were followed by the imposition of a complete security lockdown in the region, which lasted for ninety-five days. It was followed by a massive crackdown against pro-freedom groups, with hundreds of suspects being arrested. Most of these protests against Indian rule were led by local political leaders of Kashmir. This was not surprising because most of these leaders had been actively engaged in the freedom struggle since the early 1990s, when pro-freedom demonstrations were first led by local leaders. By 2001, the majority of local politicians had been arrested for their pro-freedom activities. Even then, the mainstream political parties continued their support to the resistance movement. As soon as news spread that the Centre was revoking Article 35A, the region was flooded with reports and statements that a massive crackdown was imminent. The reports were also backed by large advertisements on media platforms, which suggested that Article 35A would be reinstated, but were later withdrawn. Most of the mainstream political parties of Kashmir initially tried to downplay these reports of the crackdown and its effect. This was followed by a series of resignations from the opposition parties, with many of them calling for greater autonomy within India. To ensure a smooth implementation of the decisions made by the Supreme Court, a large number of civil and police officials had to be deployed at all possible borders and sensitive areas. According to sources, thousands of jawans were also deployed to prevent any form of violence. More than eight thousand paramilitary personnel were also deployed in Srinagar to control the situation. Since the main opponents of Article 35A are from the Kashmiri youth, the military, who have served as a pro-India force, will be a major challenge. To counter them, the deployment of personnel from Punjab, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh will also be required. This may explain why the government finally agreed to reconsider its decision to revoke Article 35A. A more radical move that has been taken by the Indian government was the recent repeal of Article 370. While Article 35A allowed some rights and privileges to people living in the state, Article 370 was not only an internal matter, but was also a legal agreement between the state and the Indian government. The provisions of this article allowed special rights to all the permanent residents of the state, including those who were married to non-residents. This also prevented the state from signing or ratifying any external agreement with other countries. It is true that these rights were provided to the permanent residents of the state, but many did not take this decision as a natural part of citizenship. According to the provisions of the Indian Constitution, only permanent residents of the state are considered as Indian citizens. Article 370 ensured that the rights provided under Article 35A were only available to the residents of the state. However, the revocation of Article 35A has allowed all the Indians, including all permanent residents of the state, to purchase land and carry out other activities. In fact, it does not matter whether the person is from the Jammu region, Delhi, Chandigarh, or any other state in India. In a sense, the repeal of Article 370 and Article 35A were part of a larger plan to merge the state of Kashmir with India. This will bring peace to the region and allow all citizens, including permanent residents of the state, to have access to all government benefits and protection that is available to citizens across India. With this decision, the Centre has managed to regain control of the region. According to constitutional experts, the latest decision will allow the ruling government to conduct an experiment that will provide a safe ground for investment in the state. * * * A controversial issue regarding the rights of women in India is the high number of rapes that take place across the country, with the majority of them taking place in rural areas. This issue is particularly important in the case of the state of Punjab, where more than twenty-one thousand rapes are reported every year. One of the main reasons for this high number of rape cases is the fact that there is no concept of marriage in the villages of Punjab. As a result, young girls are often forced into marriage. Many of them, especially those who are not from rich families, end up living in fear of their husbands, who often insist on continuing their relationships with their past wives. In the absence of a comprehensive law against domestic abuse, especially for the women from poorer families, rape has become a frequent occurrence. Since there are almost no legal provisions to prosecute the men who commit these crimes, the fear of law is non-existent. The number of rapes and abuses increased even more after the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019. Soon after the revocation, a large number of men took the extreme step of publicly beating up their wives and sisters, who refused to comply with their demands. In order to hide their crimes, most of the husbands went to the police and filed cases against the women. Most of these families refused to take action against their relatives. According to those who suffered such abuse, it would be more appropriate for the women to take the law into their own hands and charge the men with their own crime. Such cases will only increase in the future with time, and will continue to threaten the personal safety of women, particularly in rural areas. The number of rape cases reported across the country may be