On August 5 2019, India revoked Article 370 unilaterally, repealing the constitutional autonomy of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), a provision based on the 1949 settlement of the disputed accession of the princely state. The action was a seismic shift in the Kashmir conflict, an unresolved legacy of the 1947 partition. The so-called Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh was globally condemned as coerced and illegitimate. India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, internationalized the conflict by referring it to the UN Security Council, which adopted Resolution 47 on April 21 1948, calling for a plebiscite to ascertain Kashmiris’ wishes. India’s repeal of Article 370 not only repudiated this commitment but also precipitated demographic engineering, political persecution, and economic marginalization, with more than 27,000 incarcerations and $9 billion in damages documented since 2019.
Article 370 accorded legislative superiority to Jammu and Kashmir over all issues short of defence, foreign affairs, finance, and communications, enabling Kashmiris to make policy choices unaided and keeping outsiders out of land ownership. Article 35A, introduced by a 1954 Presidential Order, and supplemented this autonomy by conferring exclusive privileges, ownership of property, government jobs, and educational benefits, on permanent residents.
The 2019 abrogation of both provisions constituted a unilateral reshuffling of a disputed territory, now divided into Union Territories administered directly from New Delhi. Over 700,000 Indian soldiers are deployed there. Kashmir remains the most militarised place on the planet. Kashmiris have since faced systematic repression: arbitrary detentions, surveillance, and restrictions on movement and expression persist, journalists and activists being increasingly targeted by repressive legislation such as the Public Safety Act (PBA) and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
For most Kashmiri Muslims, the majority population in IIOJK, the abrogation of Article 370 is a grave loss, reinforcing their sense of alienation from a state that they do not acknowledge. They are bound by geography, religion, and culture, and their desire to become a part of Pakistan still runs deep. The All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference resolution on July 19, 1947, reflected this desire, which persists even after so many years of Indian occupation. Over 96,000 Kashmiris have been martyred since 1989, but their resolve for liberty and accession to Pakistan is still unbroken.
India’s founding leaders, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Prime Minister Nehru, vowed to hold an election to determine what the Kashmiri people desired. The promise is in UN Security Council Resolution 47, which was passed on April 21 1948. Subsequent Indian governments, however, reversed this stance, increasingly asserting that Jammu and Kashmir is an “integral part” of India, despite its disputed status. India today asserts that UNSC resolutions are outdated and irrelevant, but fails to account for the fact that the UN predates these resolutions. Suppose being outdated renders legal commitments null and void; then, by that logic, the authority of the UN would also be outdated, which is unreasonable and diplomatically wanting. Resolution 47 remains significant under international law and upholds the rights of Kashmiris to decide for themselves.
India’s claim over Jammu and Kashmir was initially put forth as temporary, subject to a popular vote, a commitment made by Mahatma Gandhi on October 26, 1947, and endorsed by Nehru’s letter to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on November 21, 1947, requesting an UN-monitored vote. Nehru’s December 12 1947, message also proposed neutral UN observers to facilitate the process. To demonstrate benign intentions, India granted Kashmir special status under Articles 370 and 35A, which enabled it to enjoy its constitution, flag, and local laws. India subsequently shifted its stance, asserting Kashmir was an “integral part” of India and dismissing UN resolutions as out of date. This stance strangely challenges the authority of the UN itself.
Since independence, no Indian government changed Kashmir’s special status until Narendra Modi’s BJP government revoked Article 370 on August 5 2019, keeping a long-pending promise. It was a largely political move: to mollify Hindu hardliners, gather the BJP’s nationalist vote bank, and show a hardline approach towards Kashmir and Pakistan. The revocation allowed people from other places to settle in the state, destroying its Muslim majority. It also allowed for a BJP-aligned and pro-Hindutva policy-leaning Chief Minister without heeding constitutional limitations. This unilateral step violated UN resolutions and world norms, making the world’s most militarized region’s crisis more entrenched.
India’s revocation of Article 370 on August 5 2019, was against its constitution, which had declared that it would need the approval of Jammu and Kashmir’s elected government. This government never lasted for more than a year since the planned collapse of Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti’s government in June 2018. The application of Governor’s Rule and then President’s Rule allowed Modi’s BJP to circumvent democratic approval, taking approval from a handpicked governor. Prominent constitutional expert A.G. Noorani has termed this action “fraudulent” and illegal under the law. Pakistan, which has been speaking on behalf of the people of Kashmir in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), has always disagreed with the revocation, bringing the matter to the UN, OIC, and other international forums.
Pakistan has consistently demonstrated its strong solidarity with the people of Kashmir morally, diplomatically, and politically, particularly since India removed Articles 370 and 35A on August 5 2019. Most of the Kashmiri leaders and people opposed this move strongly, referring to it as a political game-changer to alter the population and curtail people’s rights. India’s argument that this alteration would bring “normalcy, peace, and prosperity” was untrue. The Kashmir Chamber of Commerce estimated that the state lost over $5.3 billion in the economy and over 100,000 jobs. Human rights violations have risen, including discriminatory arrests, media control, and repressive laws such as UAPA curtailing free speech.
