Note from Dr. Ritesh Arya: Opposition to Schedule 6 in Border States

# Note from Dr. Ritesh Arya: Opposition to Schedule 6 in Border States

I strongly oppose the implementation of Schedule 6 of the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution in border states for several critical reasons.

1. **Restriction on Land Ownership**:

   - The introduction of Schedule 6 restricts Indian citizens from purchasing land in these regions, posing a significant barrier to development. This restriction can stifle investment opportunities and hinder infrastructure growth, ultimately impacting the prosperity of border areas.

2. **Weakening India's Stance in International Affairs**:

   - The implementation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir and Schedule 6 in northeastern states has weakened India’s stance in the international arena. These provisions have been perceived as indications of disputed land, giving an upper hand to China in various territorial claims. For instance, China's actions in Tibet since 1959, including the forceful occupation of Kailash and Mansarovar in 1962 as part of Aksai Chin, have been emboldened by India's ambiguous territorial status in border areas, including Gilgit-Baltistan and Skardu, which are considered parts of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

3. **Historical Context**:

   - The decisions made by the then Indian government under Nehru inadvertently weakened our northern borders, placing us at a disadvantage against China, which has continued to encroach upon grazing lands in border villages. While the Chinese have not occupied additional land from villagers since then, the historical context illustrates the risks of creating special provisions that further complicate territorial integrity.

4. **Threat to National Integrity and Unity**:

   - By establishing special provisions for border states, we risk fostering divisions within our nation. Different laws governing land ownership can instill a sense of separation, undermining the core principles of national unity and integrity that bind us as a country.

5. **Potential for Increased Instability**:

   - The unique status granted to these regions may lead to local tensions, making them more susceptible to external influences. This situation could escalate discontent or even separatist sentiments, forcing communities apart and challenging our collective harmony.

6. **Impact on National Security**:

   - Limiting the presence of Indian citizens in border states may weaken governmental authority and surveillance in these critical areas, which could have troubling implications for national security. A visible and robust presence of Indian citizens is essential for ensuring stability and security along our borders.

7. **Protection of Agricultural Land**:

   - It is crucial that the agricultural land in these areas be integrated into the villages and protected under established land laws. This integration will ensure that local farmers retain their livelihoods and can continue to cultivate their land without the threat of external appropriation. Protecting agricultural land is vital for food security and the economic well-being of the local population.

8. **Changing Cultural Landscape**:

   - Observing the current scenario, many children from affluent families in Ladakh and the northeastern states are being sent to prestigious schools outside their regions. As a result, these children are increasingly influenced by broader Indian culture and tend to be more open to diverse perspectives. This trend highlights a shift towards integration with the national mainstream, countering the narrative of isolation and insularity promoted by some local elites who perceive an imaginary threat to their socio-economic status. These affluent families often fear the potential competition from others and may resist sharing opportunities, perpetuating a divisive environment that undermines communal growth.

9. **Cultural Preservation Arguments**:

   - Proponents of Schedule 6 often argue that it is essential for the preservation of indigenous cultures and traditions. While cultural preservation is vital, it should not come at the expense of national unity or development. We can promote cultural heritage through inclusive policies that celebrate diversity while ensuring robust integration with the Indian nation.

10. **Self-Governance Claims**:

   - The argument for self-governance under Schedule 6 suggests that local populations should have greater control over their affairs. However, effective governance can be achieved through well-structured decentralization within the existing framework of the Indian Constitution, without creating separate laws that could isolate these regions and foster division.

11. **Revocation of Article 370**:

   - The recent scrapping of Article 370 by the government has restored powers directly to the people, promoting greater integration and uniformity in governance across regions. This move empowers citizens and reinforces the idea of a unified nation, making it counterproductive to introduce provisions like Schedule 6 that could re-establish divisions.

### Conclusion:

In closing, while the arguments for cultural preservation and self-governance under Schedule 6 may be well-intentioned, we must carefully weigh the potential geopolitical ramifications against the need for cohesive national development and security. It is vital that we ensure all Indians have the opportunity to live, invest, and contribute to the growth of these strategically important regions while also protecting vital agricultural resources for future generations. The scrapping of Article 370 is a significant step towards promoting a unified India, and we must not undermine this progress by granting special status to northeastern states and Ladakh through Schedule 6.