Altaf Bukhari Pushes for 35–50 Year Residency Requirement for Domicile in Jammu & Kashmir: A New Flashpoint in Post-370 Politics

Altaf Bukhari Demands 35–50 Year Residency Rule for Domicile Status in Jammu & Kashmir | A Deep Dive Into the Politics of Identity & Safeguards

By: Javid Amin | 29 November 2025

In a region where identity, rights, land, and political representation have long been entwined with history and conflict, even a small administrative rule can trigger large-scale debate. But when a prominent political figure proposes a radical overhaul of Jammu & Kashmir’s domicile eligibility, the reaction is bound to be louder, deeper, and politically charged.

This is exactly what unfolded after Apni Party President Altaf Bukhari demanded that the Government of India revise the existing domicile rules and impose a minimum residency requirement of 35 to 50 years for anyone seeking domicile status in Jammu & Kashmir. Speaking at a party convention in Srinagar, Bukhari emphasized that such a change was not merely bureaucratic, but fundamental to the cultural preservation, demographic stability, and socio-economic rights of the region’s indigenous population.

Bukhari’s statement instantly echoed across political circles, civil society forums, and online spaces, reigniting a debate that has remained sensitive and unresolved in the years following the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019.

Where one section views the proposal as a necessary shield against demographic shifts, another sees it as legally problematic, exclusionary, and impractical.

This article examines the demand in depth, explores its political context, evaluates legal implications, analyses public sentiment, and investigates what such a dramatic overhaul of domicile policy would mean for the future of Jammu & Kashmir.

Understanding the Domicile Debate: Why It Matters in Jammu & Kashmir

To grasp the impact of Bukhari’s demand, one must understand why domicile laws hold extraordinary significance in Jammu & Kashmir. For decades, the region operated under special constitutional guarantees that defined:

• who could buy land

• who could hold government jobs

• who could vote in certain elections

• who was considered a “state subject”

The abrogation of Article 370 and 35A in 2019 dismantled these protections and introduced a new domicile framework applicable to anyone meeting criteria set by the Union government.

Current Domicile Eligibility Rules:

Under the rules notified in 2020, a person can qualify for J&K domicile if:

1. They have lived in the region for 15 years, or

2. Studied in J&K for 7 years, or

3. Appeared for Class 10 or 12 exams in the Union Territory, or

4. They are children of central government employees serving in J&K for 10 years, or

5. They are migrants registered with the Relief & Rehabilitation Commissioner.

For many political and social groups, these conditions are too lenient, opening avenues for what they fear could become a “silent demographic shift.”

The 35–50 Year Residency Demand: What Altaf Bukhari Said and Why

During a large gathering of Apni Party workers in Srinagar, Altaf Bukhari delivered a pointed critique of the current domicile rules. He argued that:

• 15 years of residency is “not enough” to understand or become integrated into the social fabric of J&K.

• People who have lived in the region for only a decade and a half “cannot be treated at par” with native inhabitants.

• The rules must reflect “ground realities and sensitivities unique to J&K.”

Altaf Bukhari’s Core Assertion:

“We demand that domicile eligibility must be given only to those who have lived here for at least 35 to 50 years. This is essential to protect the rights of our people and ensure that the cultural identity of Jammu and Kashmir is not diluted.”

His statement is rooted in the belief that J&K’s demography is fragile and particularly vulnerable to shifts that could impact:

• access to land

• employment opportunities

• political representation

• linguistic and cultural identity

• traditional social structures

Why 35–50 Years? The Rationale Behind the Proposal

Bukhari’s proposed timeframe is significantly more stringent than any domicile rule in India. So why did he suggest such a high threshold?

1. Protecting Cultural Identity

JK has historically been defined by its distinct identity—linguistic, cultural, and societal. Many locals fear that the dilution of domicile safeguards will gradually erode this identity.

A longer residency requirement, in their view, ensures that only those fully integrated over generations become eligible.

2. Preventing a Perceived Demographic Imbalance

Post-2019, fears of demographic manipulation have persisted. A 35–50 year threshold would drastically reduce the pool of potential new domiciles, stabilizing demographic patterns.

3. Reflecting J&K’s Historical Context

Before Article 370’s removal, a person needed to be a state subject, often tied to ancestral lineage. The new 15-year rule is seen as too liberal by traditional standards.

4. Restricting Eligibility for Land and Jobs

Government jobs, especially in Kashmir, have been central to the economy. Locals feel that external competition would burden an already limited job market.

A stricter rule acts as a safeguard.

5. Political Messaging to Core Constituency

Apni Party, often perceived as moderate or centrist, is facing pressure to align with sentiments deeply rooted in identity protection. Bukhari’s statement may be a response to that political need.

Reactions Across the Political Spectrum

Bukhari’s comment has not gone unnoticed. It has sparked responses from all major political formations in J&K.

National Conference (NC)

NC maintains that domicile issues cannot be fully addressed unless full statehood and Article 370-like protections are restored. Some leaders subtly welcomed the sentiment but questioned whether such rules could stand judicial scrutiny.

People’s Democratic Party (PDP)

PDP criticised the proposal as “politically convenient” but acknowledged that locals’ fears regarding identity and employment are legitimate.

BJP

The BJP is likely to reject the idea as “regressive” and “exclusionary,” framing it as contrary to national unity and equal rights.

People’s Conference

The party sees this as an opportunistic move targeted at regional sentiment, though it acknowledges that lax domicile rules have created public anxiety.

Civil Society

NGOs, activists, and professional bodies remain divided. Some strongly support the protectionist stance, while others believe such proposals foster exclusivity and hinder integration.

Public Reaction: A Region Split Between Identity and Legal Practicality

Much of the public sentiment echoes the political divide:

Supporters Say:

• “We must protect our land and identity; 15 years is not enough.”

• “Kashmiris will become a minority in their own homeland.”

Opponents Say:

• “35 years is too long; it will bar genuine residents from accessing rights.”

• “It will be challenged in court instantly.”

Neutral Voices Ask:

• “Even if the rule is changed, how will it be enforced fairly?”

• “What about children of migrant workers, labourers, and long-term settlers who have contributed to society?”

The debate reflects the deep emotional and political layers embedded in questions of land, identity, and belonging in Jammu & Kashmir.

Legal and Constitutional Questions: Can Such a Rule Even Survive Judicial Scrutiny?

A 35–50 year residency requirement for state domicile would be unprecedented in modern India. Experts suggest it may collide with constitutional provisions like:

• Article 14: Right to equality

• Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination

• Article 19: Right to settle anywhere in India

• Article 21: Right to life and dignity

The Supreme Court’s past judgements have upheld reasonable residency requirements, but a 35–50 year rule may be considered excessive and discriminatory.

Legal scholars argue that unless J&K regains special constitutional status, such strict rules may not withstand challenge.

Why Bukhari’s Demand Is Politically Significant Right Now

Bukhari’s statement arrives at a politically charged moment:

1. Elections in J&K Are Anticipated in 2025

All political parties are sharpening their identity-centric narratives.

2. Unemployment remains a major concern

Competition for government jobs heightens regional anxieties.

3. Demographic fears persist post-2019

Residents worry about long-term consequences of new administrative rules.

4. Apni Party is repositioning itself

Seen as too close to Delhi, the party is now attempting to assert regional-centric positions to widen its voter base.

5. Questions of land ownership are growing

Multiple eviction and demolition drives in recent years have made land a sensitive topic.

The Long Shadow of History: Why Identity & Residency Rules Hold Exceptional Weight in Jammu & Kashmir

Jammu & Kashmir’s political DNA cannot be separated from its unique historical trajectory—royal-era agreements, the Instrument of Accession, Article 370, 35A, the State Subject system, and the post-2019 legal order. Discussions on identity, residency, land rights, and demographic balance evoke memories spanning nearly a century.

Understanding why Altaf Bukhari’s proposal has generated such intense debate requires going back to where these protections originally came from, how they evolved, and why they remain so deeply embedded in the region’s collective psychology.

From Maharaja’s Orders to Modern-Day Domicile Laws: A Century-Long Timeline

1920s: The Genesis of “State Subject”

The roots trace back to the reign of Maharaja Hari Singh. In the 1920s, Kashmiris feared an influx of outsiders—particularly Punjabi businessmen and landowners—who were acquiring land and dominating trade.

The Maharaja responded by issuing a series of notifications defining:

• Permanent Residents (State Subjects)

• Eligibility for land ownership

• Right to government jobs

• Right to vote in certain local bodies

This set the foundation for what would become the region’s most sensitive political safeguard.

1947–1954: Accession and Constitutional Recognition

When Jammu & Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession with India in 1947, it retained autonomy over internal matters except for defence, foreign affairs, and communications.

By 1954, the Delhi Agreement incorporated J&K’s State Subject laws into the Indian Constitution under:

Article 35A

This provision empowered the J&K government to define:

• who is a permanent resident

• what rights they hold

• who can buy land

• who can obtain government employment

For decades, these protections were seen as essential to preserving the socio-cultural and economic ecosystem of the region.

2019: Article 370 & 35A Abrogated — A Paradigm Shift

On August 5, 2019, the Indian government revoked J&K’s special constitutional status.

Consequences included:

• permanent resident certificates (PRCs) were abolished

• State Subject laws were invalidated

• the region was bifurcated into two union territories

• new domicile rules were introduced

• land laws were liberalised to allow non-residents to purchase property (with exceptions)

For many locals, this marked the beginning of profound uncertainty about identity and demographic preservation.

2020: New Domicile Rules Become Operational

The government introduced new domicile eligibility criteria, drastically reducing the protection threshold from ancestral lineage to mere residency-based criteria.

This shift is the backdrop against which leaders like Altaf Bukhari are now advocating stricter safeguards.

The Psychological Landscape: Why Fears of Demographic Change Are Deeply Rooted

Kashmir’s population has always been demographically delicate:

• It is a Muslim-majority region in a Hindu-majority country.

• It has faced multiple waves of migration (e.g., Pandit displacement, labour migration).

• The conflict-driven economy depends heavily on government employment.

• Land ownership is tied to identity, heritage, and security.

Thus, any administrative change affecting residency or land rights is perceived not merely as policy, but as an existential matter.

Comparing J&K With Other Indian States Having Special Protection

Altaf Bukhari’s proposal may appear extreme at first glance, but India itself has states with strong residency, land, and tribal protections.

Here is how J&K’s situation compares:

Himachal Pradesh

• Outsiders cannot buy agricultural land unless approved by the state government.

• Protection exists to preserve hill ecology and prevent demographic shifts.

Uttarakhand (Hill Districts)

• Certain blocks have restrictions on land purchases by non-residents.

Nagaland

• Article 371A protects local customs and land ownership rights.

• Outsiders need special permits to buy land.

Mizoram

• Article 371G prohibits transfer of land to non-indigenous people.

Arunachal Pradesh

• Restricted Area Permit (RAP) and Inner Line Permit (ILP) regulate entry and settlement.

Sikkim

• Article 371F preserves socio-cultural identity and restricts outside settlement.

Key Takeaway from These Comparisons

Residency and land protection laws are common in India, especially in border states and tribal regions.
What makes J&K’s case unique is:

1. Its history of conflict and political volatility

2. Its religious demography and identity sensitivities

3. The profound trauma associated with 2019 legal changes

Thus, although Bukhari’s 35–50 year residency requirement is stricter than other states’ models, the logic behind it is rooted in a similar desire to preserve local identity.

Would a 35–50 Year Rule Be Legal? A Constitutional Deep Dive

Let’s examine how such a rule might fare legally.

1. Reasonableness Test (Article 14)

The Supreme Court allows residency requirements only when reasonable.
Examples include:

• Local candidates in government jobs

• Local preferences in university admissions

• ILP/RAP requirements in tribal regions

A 35–50 year rule may be viewed as “excessive,” because:

• It excludes legitimate long-term settlers

• It creates a near-impossible threshold

• It may be seen as arbitrary

2. Article 19: Right to Live and Settle in India

Citizens have the right to:

• move freely

• settle anywhere in India

States can impose reasonable restrictions, especially regarding land, but not blanket exclusions for 35–50 years.

3. Precedents from the Northeast

Tribal protections under Article 371 are constitutionally carved out.
J&K no longer has such constitutional backing.

Thus, Bukhari’s proposal may require:

• a special constitutional amendment,

• or restoration of limited autonomous protections.

4. Judicial Trends

Courts generally strike down rules that:

• create broad exclusion

• impose excessive barriers

• discriminate without justification

Examples:

• Domicile requirements in Karnataka universities

• Job quotas based on excessively narrow residency clauses

This suggests a 50-year threshold may not survive constitutional scrutiny unless framed narrowly (e.g., for land in specific high-sensitivity zones).

Ground-Level Impact: How Would Such a Rule Affect Ordinary People?

If implemented, the rule would dramatically reshape J&K’s social, economic, and administrative landscape.

Impact on Long-Term Residents Without Ancestral Ties

Thousands of families have lived in J&K for 20–30 years:

• traders

• migrant labourers

• central government employee families

• displaced people from border areas

• students who stayed back for work

A rigid 35–50 year rule would:

• deny them domicile rights

• threaten job eligibility

• block land purchase

• push them into legal limbo

This could create new social fault lines.

Impact on Government Jobs

A significant portion of Kashmir’s working population depends on government employment.

A stricter rule would:

• protect job opportunities for locals

• reduce competition

• stabilise employment patterns

But it may also:

• reduce talent inflow

• weaken administrative diversity

• affect long-term institutional capacity

Impact on Land Ownership

One of the biggest fears in J&K is that “outsiders will buy our land.”

A long residency requirement could:

• reduce land speculation

• protect rural and agricultural land

• prevent arbitrary acquisitions by real estate groups

However, it may also limit:

• economic investments

• infrastructure development

• high-skill migration into the region

Impact on Social Harmony

Depending on how it is communicated and implemented, such a rule could either:

Promote social trust, by reassuring locals that their identity is protected.

—or—

Create a psychological divide between “natives” and “new residents.”

Impact on Kashmir Pandits

A critical question emerges:

Would displaced Kashmiri Pandits automatically qualify under 35–50 year rules?

If the rule recognises ancestral lineage, then yes.

If it is strictly residency-based, many Pandits who migrated in the 1990s would be excluded.

Thus, the policy would require careful legal framing to avoid unintended exclusions.

Impact on Businesses and Skilled Workers

A 35–50 year rule could significantly reduce the ability of:

• outside investors

• industrial groups

• high-skill professionals

to relocate to J&K.

This may protect local identity but restrict economic diversification.

Why Bukhari’s Proposal Resonates With Many Locals Despite Legal Uncertainty

Several social surveys and anecdotal accounts reveal a pattern:

People are less concerned about economic liberalisation; more concerned about demographic shifts.

Identity concerns overshadow economic aspirations.

For many residents, especially in Kashmir Valley:

• land = heritage

• identity = security

• residency = legitimacy

• demographic balance = political survival

Thus, Bukhari’s proposal taps into deep-rooted emotional anxieties that transcend policy rationality.

Political Context: The Timing of the Statement Is Not Accidental

Three major political dynamics frame the backdrop for this proposal.

1. J&K Is Preparing for Elections After 10 Years

With elections expected in 2025, political parties are repositioning themselves.

Identity-based messaging remains the strongest mobilising force in J&K.

Apni Party, often criticised for being close to the Centre, needs a strong regional statement.
This demand offers exactly that.

2. New Lands Laws & Demolition Drives Have Heightened Public Fear

Multiple eviction drives in the past three years—especially demolitions involving small households, farmers, and shopkeepers—have left a deep psychological impact.

People fear that:

• outsiders may acquire land

• locals may lose property over “technicalities”

• demographic change could be engineered

Bukhari’s demand attempts to address these anxieties.

3. Regional Parties Are Competing to Lead the Identity Narrative

National Conference, PDP, People’s Conference, and Apni Party are all vying for the identity protection space.

Bukhari’s proposal helps Apni Party re-enter that contest.

Kashmir’s Security Landscape: A Realistic, DATA-Driven Review

While tourism narratives often focus on beauty, culture, and hospitality, a comprehensive analysis must also examine security perceptions, ground realities, and policy responses. The Punjab Governor’s remarks — calling the Pahalgam attack a “one-off incident” — situate the event within a longer, data-backed trajectory of improving safety in Kashmir.

01. Kashmir’s Security Trends Over the Last Decade

Decline in Major Incidents

From 2012 to 2024, Kashmir witnessed a significant year-on-year decrease in militant-related violence, especially in areas frequented by tourists, such as:

• Gulmarg

• Pahalgam

• Sonamarg

• Srinagar city and Dal Lake belt

These locations have been declared high-security tourism zones, protected through collaboration between:

• J&K Police

• Indian Army

• CRPF

• Tourism Department security units

• Local community vigil groups

Recovery After Past Disruptions

Throughout its history, Kashmir has repeatedly demonstrated a capacity for rapid tourism recovery after temporary disruptions.
For example:

• Post-2019 restrictions, Kashmir recorded record tourism numbers in 2022 and 2023.

• During 2024, hotels in Pahalgam and Gulmarg reported occupancy rates crossing 85% during peak season.

Such trends reinforce a key insight:
➡️ Tourist confidence returns quickly when security agencies respond swiftly and transparently.

02. Why the Pahalgam Attack Is Classified as “Isolated”

When the Punjab Governor described the attack as a “one-off” event, it reflected the assessment shared by:

• Security agencies

• Tourism authorities

• Local community leaders

A. No direct pattern targeting tourists

Investigations indicate:

• The attack sought to disrupt local stability, not specifically target tourists.

• The route involved is not a tourist-heavy zone.

• Tourism corridors remained operational and unaffected.

B. Rapid containment and no escalation

After the incident:

• Forces neutralized threats in adjoining areas.

• Additional security checkpoints were established.

• Tourist flow to Pahalgam returned to normal within 24 hours.

C. Community solidarity

Local Kashmiris — especially transporters, ponywalas, hoteliers, guides, and shopkeepers — were among the first to reassure visitors.
Their stance is consistent with the region’s long-standing belief that tourism is a shared livelihood, and threats to it are collectively resisted.

03. Security Infrastructure Strengthening Tourism Corridors

Tourism zones in Kashmir are now supported by multi-layered protection frameworks.

A. Surveillance & monitoring

• High-definition CCTV networks across Srinagar, Pahalgam, Gulmarg, and Sonamarg

• Tourist route patrolling

• Drone surveillance during peak seasons

• GPS tracking for Amarnath Yatra and Pahalgam route vehicles

B. Emergency response systems

• Dedicated tourist protection force units

• Integrated control rooms

• Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) in all major destinations

• Medical emergency units deployed during Yatra season

C. Infrastructure upgrades

• Improved lighting on tourist roads

• Safe pedestrian zones in Srinagar and Gulmarg

• Tourism Police kiosks in Lal Chowk, Boulevard Road, and Sonamarg market

D. Tourist information security

• Live advisories released through:

  • Tourism Department’s official website

  • District administration bulletins

  • Airport announcements

  • Hotel and travel operator associations

The broad consensus across agencies is clear:
➡️ Tourism zones in Kashmir are among the most closely monitored and tightly protected civilian areas in India.

04. Role of Community Stakeholders in Ensuring Visitor Safety

Unlike many tourism regions worldwide, Kashmir’s community plays a frontline role in protecting and guiding tourists.

A. Houseboat & hotel workers

• Maintain visitor logs

• Coordinate with police when needed

• Ensure safe transit arrangements

B. Transporters & taxi unions

Drivers openly share route advisories and guide tourists away from restricted areas, demonstrating grassroots vigilance.

C. Adventure tourism operators

Trekking groups in Pahalgam, Sonamarg, and Gurez follow strict:

• registration systems

• equipment checks

• route safety protocols

D. Market associations

Shopkeepers in Lal Chowk, Pahalgam, and Gulmarg frequently:

• Help lost tourists

• Report suspicious activity

• Coordinate with authorities

This integrated system shows that tourist protection is a social responsibility in Kashmir, not merely institutional.

05. Media Narratives vs. Ground Reality

A single incident often triggers high-intensity national media coverage, but the lived reality for tourists on the ground remains vastly different.

A. Media amplification

While necessary for transparency, sensational headlines can temporarily distort:

• Perceptions of risk

• Safety confidence

• Travel decision-making

B. Real-time traveller reports

However, thousands of travellers share real-time updates on:

• Instagram Reels

• Travel blogs

• YouTube vlogs

• Community travel forums

A scan of these usually shows:

• Crowded markets

• Busy ski slopes

• Families boating at Dal Lake

• Regular tourist movement in Pahalgam

These real visitor reports align strongly with the Governor’s observation that Kashmir is safe, peaceful, and prepared to welcome tourists.

06. Economic Imperative of Accurate Safety Narratives

Tourism is central to Kashmir’s economic health.

Key sectors affected by tourism livelihood:

• Hospitality

• Transport

• Handicrafts (pashmina, papier mâché, carpets, woodwork)

• Adventure tourism

• Agriculture (fruits, saffron, walnuts, hospitality-linked consumption)

A misinformed security narrative can impact:

• Daily wage earners

• Micro-businesses

• Family-run hotels

• Taxi and shikara operators

Accurate assessments — like the Governor’s — help protect:

• Jobs

• Investment

• Annual tourism revenue exceeding ₹1,000–2,000 crore during peak seasons

07. How Government Messaging Restores Confidence

When high-ranking officials — like the Punjab Governor — speak positively about Kashmir’s:

• safety

• weather

• beauty

• hospitality

…it influences:

• Public reassurance

• Interstate tourism flows

• Media framing

• Industry sentiment

Governors hold constitutional authority and influence public opinion.
Therefore, his statement functions as a confidence-building message timed strategically ahead of the winter season.