top of page

INSPIREINDIA

Legal Labyrinth: The Constitutional Debate Surrounding Article 370's Abrogation

(Introduction) The Kashmir issue is a longstanding territorial dispute between India and Pakistan, originating from the partition of India in 1947. Both countries claim the region, with India controlling the majority, including Jammu and Kashmir, while Pakistan administers Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. The conflict led to several wars and ongoing tensions, with Kashmiris also seeking self-determination or independence. In 2019, India revoked Kashmir's special autonomy under Article 370, further escalating tensions. Diving into Article 370, the rule that gave Jammu and Kashmir its own special status in India. The revocation of Article 370 in 2019 was a significant event in India's history, prompting extensive discussions about identity, rights, and national integration. This constitutional provision had afforded Jammu and Kashmir special autonomy since 1947. Its removal by the Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, aimed to fully integrate the region into India, but critics argued it could alter the demographic character of the Muslim-majority region and undermine local rights. The distinctive position of J&K was realized through the Instrument of Accession, which was the formal document of agreement between the ruler of the princely state and India in 1947. This treaty permitted the state to become part of India, under certain conditions that ensured the state’s autonomy. It granted a separate constitution for J&K and laid down that no law of Parliament would apply to the state without its concurrence. This was intended so that the state could find an identity but yet maintain it as one of India. Article 370 of the Indian Constitution provided that the State of Jammu and Kashmir would possess its own constitution, utilize its own flag, and exercise significant autonomy in various internal matters. Meanwhile, the central government in New Delhi retained authority over defense, foreign relations, and communications. This arrangement allowed Jammu and Kashmir to maintain a distinct legal and administrative framework compared to other Indian states. However, this special status did not come without controversy. According to Jill Cottrell's Observations, through the Presidential Orders made over the years, more provisions of the Indian Constitution were extended to J&K without the latter's legislative approval. This meant that the autonomy initially assured by the Article started to erode. It can be inferred that Article 370 was the product of the desperation for a temporary arrangement, not only from the historical context but from the fact it can be found in Part XXI of the Constitution, which deals with "Temporary, Transitional, and Special Provisions." It was introduced to make the process of integrating J&K into India easier. Meanwhile, the act of creating a Constituent Assembly for the making of a state constitution was going on in tandem. It was in 1946 that the British Cabinet Mission Plan visualized a Constituent Assembly to frame a constitution for an independent India. This assembly was heavily burdened with the responsibility of dealing with the diversified needs and aspirations of various regions, particularly Jammu and Kashmir, which had its own peculiar political and social scenario. Its work ultimately ended by way of the Constitution as adopted on January 26, 1950- and in this specific context, with the formulation of Article 370. However, despite the intent of a temporary nature, the Article has developed branches into the entire social and political dimension of the State. For example, under Article 35A, rights exclusive to the permanently residing people of Jammu and Kashmir involved immovable property, and one was allowed to purchase land only when there was an intention to reside within the state. Moreover, property was sold only through permanent residents. Subsequently, this Article gave permanent residents benefits to occupy posts in state government jobs and to avail scholarships. All these benefits would strictly accrue to those found to be permanent residents; thereby “safeguarding” the demographic character of J&K, which is the only Muslim-minority state in the country (History) On August 5, 2019, the abolition of Article 370, heralded a new era in Indian politics. The BJP-led government, which opposed it, claimed that getting rid of the article was necessary for the complete integration of J&K into India and for the furtherance of development in the region. This move not only withdrew the privilege but also led to the division of J&K into the two UTs of Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh. According to the union home minister Amit Shah, who made the following statement in an Rajya Sabha session, the article had promoted and enhanced separatism and terrorism in the state through law-provided cover under which it allowed certain sections of the population to gain hold and subsequently influence the minds and youths of the people mostly with violence. Through his speeches, he goes on to say Article 370 led to the environment which went on to give "the weapons and stones to youths," indicating that to see things returning to normalcy once more, this article must go. For the Bharatiya Janata Party, removing article 370 is one giant step toward national unification and development, as is seen in the voices opposed to its removal on how it would increase divisiveness in J&K. The ongoing dialogue around this issue reflects broader tensions between regional aspirations for autonomy and national policies aimed at integration. As political dynamics continue to evolve in J&K, the implications of this decision remain a critical point of contention in Indian politics. According to Drishti IAS, the Supreme Court of India confirmed this abrogation, explaining that Article 370 was actually a provisional provision, thus, Jammu and Kashmir held no inner autonomy after joining India. This would mean that all the provisions of the Indian Constitution are applicable to the State without there being a state-specific law in that matter. This decision effectively places J&K under more central control, thereby stripping it of its regional autonomy. Increased centralization would make law enforcement and administration more uniform but very possibly encourage feelings of resentment from residents who have cherished their special status and the local structures of governance, as well as groups agitated by misinformation and lack of education of the matter. In terms of change in law, removal of the present provision will enable nonresidents to buy land in J&K and settle there, which may, in turn, lead to demographic changes and disputes on the issue of ownership and local identity. This changing demography may be seen as a threat to the preservation of the local culture. The abrogation has raised serious discussion over the question of national security, demographic changes, and human rights in the State. Supporters of the abrogation argue that it will bring more development and integration to the region, while the opposers seem afraid of alienation and unrest among the local citizens. Jammu and Kashmir's relentless march into this new world of post-abrogation governance, civil rights, and regional stability cannot be extricated from the many questions such as the extent of their survival, the methods chosen, and the rate of their implementation. It is necessary to understand that the Article was, from the inception, intended to be of temporary nature. After the Instrument of Accession was signed, Article 370 was prepared under Part XXI. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar was one of the prominent members of the drafting committee and a close confidant of Nehru. This article was put forth under his penmanship. Ayyangar negotiated with Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the Prime Minister of J&K and other leaders of both sides. The negotiations between Ayyangar and Abdullah represented the intricate play of autonomy aspirations and the necessity of integration into India. Abdullah was keen on securing firm safeguards for the protection of rights and identity of J&K, whereas Ayyangar introduced constitutional provisions that would stabilize and unite the Indian framework. The discussions took place between the months of May to October in 1949. This eventually led to Article 370 being accepted on October 17, 1949, by the Constituent Assembly. Parliament's legislative authority would only extend to the State on three subjects- defense, foreign affairs and communication. The political scene of J&K evolved dramatically with each passing decade after gaining independence. Regional leaders pushing for greater autonomy and center forces of integration continued their rivalry. Although the Delhi Agreement of 1952 bridged a part of their differences between them, it was never a legal entity that would be upheld in the eyes of the law without full constitutional amendments. The Delhi Agreement of 1952 was achieved by the Indian government and leaders of J&K, particularly Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. This agreement aimed at spelling out the relationship between J&K and the Indian Union following the state's accession. It reiterated Article 370, which stated that J&K would continue to function as an autonomous state, meaning it had its constitution and self-governance but Indian laws could apply only with State consent. The Delhi Agreement marked a significant step toward achieving the goal of balancing regional autonomy with national integration despite the practical difficulties in implementing it. When J&K's Constituent Assembly was dissolved in 1957, it complicated the situation. No assembly was available to grant its consent over amendments in Article 370; such amendments began to become highly difficult to effect. The situation provided a precedent for future political maneuvering concerning J&K's status within India. Article 370 provided for the constitution of a special arrangement by the creation of an altogether different legal personality in the context of India with respect to J&K. The state's own Constituent Assembly determined which of the provisions of the Constitution of India were to govern the relationship between the constituent assembly of J&K and the rest of the Constitution. It was in 1954 that, through exhaustive discussions and debates within the constituent assembly, the order giving Presidential approval to extend several articles of the Constitution of India, retaining the special position of J&K, was passed. The political scenario and the tussle between local and national parties have kept changing. With the emergence of regional parties like NC followed by PDP, local aspirations started surfacing for greater autonomy and self-determination. With such determination for local autonomy, any amendments to Article 370 would be nearly impossible with a local legislative branch. This led the nation into a legal dilemma on whether the article could exist permanently in the constitution of India. According to Constitutional Law Texts and Academic Papers for organisations like Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), in 2018, the Supreme Court, ruled that Article 370 had acquired the attribute of permanency because a constituent assembly to suggest changes would not exist anymore. (Upon Abrogation) The abrogation of Article 370, proved a turning point in the Jammu and Kashmir saga. The Indian government announced this decision to further integrate this region with other parts of the country in order to end its special status and reconstitute the state into two Union Territories. This has implications towards every sector of life in the region, from security and governance to the economy and social dynamics. New norms for enhanced central control, in addition to an increased presence of security forces deployed on the ground to contain militancy and unrest and at the same time potentially can further heighten the contradictions between security personnel and populations. It also transitioned into a centralized form of rule, which led most people to question local representation and if local citizens were able to influence decisions on matters that affect life; therefore, disenfranchised. According to The Wire, economically, being an integral part of a larger Indian framework, the union has opened new investment avenues and development opportunities while competing for resources and forcing native businesses out of commission. It becomes likely that this would affect social dynamics because changes in property rights lead to demographic changes that tend to alter community identities, exacerbating ethnic and religious group tensions. In contrast, more investment by the center would make education and employment much more accessible; however, local youth are frustrated by the presence of outsiders competing for jobs. There is a fear of losing the cultural identity of J&K, as large numbers of people from other parts of the country might alter local customs and traditions. Much significant change noticed in the region of J&K post-abrogation has been in its security scenario. Aligning with an article in the Deccan Herald, the militant activities in the region have gone down sharply. It has also been opined, the local youth attracts much less toward militant ranks. Recruitment to militancy has hit the lowest extent. In fact, as many as only 35 militants have been reportedly killed during operations in the year 2023 as opposed to more than 120 that were reportedly killed this time in 2022. There haven't been any major public protests or stone-pelting incidents, which were a regular affair earlier. This has led to meetings and debates on matters concerning nation-building, which was unheard of before abrogation.

According to International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, J&K's economic map, too, has changed dramatically since the abrogation of Article 370. Within a few years of its abrogation, close to ₹100,000 crores worth of investment proposals have flooded the place. This is in complete contrast to the ₹14,000 crore received since independence before 2019. New industrial policies inviting homegrown and foreign investments have attracted great interest to many sectors. High-profile projects, such as the Zojila Tunnel that promises improved connectivity between Srinagar and Leh, shall improve economic prospects further. Tourism has also bounced back very well. J&K alone saw around 1.88 crore tourists last year. The increase points to the increasing confidence of visitors who are now visiting the region for its natural beauty and cultural richness. The government's focus on infrastructure development has made J&K an attractive destination again. In terms of the political context, mainstream political parties, such as National Conference (NC) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), have failed to alter their narratives in this new political scenario because of the fact that traditional bases of the parties are broken and destroyed by change of allegiances and changes in public sentiments. Socially, the revocation has elicited reactions from people. Hope for more opening up of opportunities and connection with India, though others have reservations about citizenship rights and identity in a new context. Authorities' efforts to engage, educate, and employ indigenous youth are yet to start becoming fruitful, but civil rights and political representation issues will not go away. (Conclusion) The story about Article 370 abrogation is still unfolding because different stakeholders are trying to see the long-term implications for such a move. It is being argued that the move is a step closer to national integration and a better development for J&K, but it cautions against the marginalization of local voices. The opportunity and challenge lie in the continued journey of Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation. A way forward will be found when the development shows a balance with social cohesion against a backdrop of even more respected local identities in a larger national context. Sustainable growth will therefore require not just investment but will also require commitment to democratic principles, rights, and engagement with the community. This has undoubtedly put J&K on a transformative path full of promise, though significant strides have been made in security, economic reinvigoration, and political engagement along with the ever-present need to focus on social cohesion and inclusivity, which are also ongoing efforts. It will make sure that every voice is heard and validated, and so J&K will regain its vibrancy as a unique part of India. The journey ahead is complex enough, though it will be powerful enough to build on with thought-provoking leadership and community involvement.

Sources:

Commentaires

bottom of page