The 1947 accession of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) to India was never a straightforward act of union; it was a conditional and contested integration shaped by geopolitical urgency, internal discontent, and constitutional compromise. Article 370 of the Indian Constitution emerged as the legal instrument enshrining this special relationship, offering Jammu and Kashmir internal autonomy in exchange for accession to the Indian Union. Over time, however, this autonomy was hollowed out, culminating in the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019—a move that significantly altered the region’s constitutional, political, and social landscape. This essay critically examines the journey from conditional accession to centralized control, interrogating the legal intent, political realities, and post-abrogation outcomes, many of which remain deeply contested.
The Accession: Historical and Political Context
At the time of India’s Partition, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir—with a 77% Muslim-majority population and close proximity to Pakistan—was expected by many in Pakistan to accede to the Muslim-majority dominion. However, Maharaja Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler of J&K, chose a policy of delay and issued a "standstill agreement" to both India and Pakistan to maintain the status quo while he explored the option of independence (Lamb, 1991).
Pakistan accepted the agreement; India did not. Meanwhile, internal unrest within Kashmir was growing. The Dogra monarchy had long faced uprisings—most notably in 1865, 1924, and 1931—reflecting deep-seated resentment among Muslim subjects. By the 1940s, Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference, evolving from the Muslim Conference and the Reading Room Party, had gained mass legitimacy and aligned itself ideologically with the Indian National Congress, promoting a secular and progressive vision of governance (Bose, 2003).
Why Kashmir Did Not Join Pakistan
Three key reasons explain why Kashmir did not join Pakistan:
1. Ideological Alignment: The National Conference viewed the Muslim League as communal, feudal, and incompatible with its egalitarian aspirations.
2. Monarchical Interests: The Maharaja preferred independence and resented being subordinated to either dominion.
3. Lack of Consent Mechanism: No plebiscite or popular consultation occurred before violence escalated.
This fragile equilibrium collapsed in October 1947, when tribal militias from Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province invaded Kashmir. The invasion, involving looting and massacres, prompted the Maharaja to seek military help from India. India agreed, but only after the Instrument of Accession was signed on October 26, 1947, granting India control over defense, foreign affairs, and communications (Menon, 1956). Lord Mountbatten accepted the accession with the understanding that a plebiscite would follow once peace was restored—an assurance that was never realized (Korbel, 1954).
Article 370: A Constitutional Guarantee Eroded
Article 370 was introduced to codify the conditional nature of J&K’s accession. It ensured:
A separate constitution for the state
Limited legislative powers to the Indian Parliament
Protection of land and citizenship laws
Autonomy over all matters except those explicitly acceded to
However, from the 1950s onward, this framework was systematically diluted:
Presidential Orders—especially those in 1954 and subsequent years—extended nearly all provisions of the Indian Constitution to J&K, eroding its autonomy through backdoor mechanisms (Noorani, 2011).
The 1953 dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah and central control over subsequent state politics marked the end of meaningful federalism in Kashmir (Bose, 2003).
By the early 2000s, many scholars concluded that Article 370 had become symbolic, invoked for political rhetoric but devoid of real autonomy (Chowdhury, 2019).
Abrogation in 2019: Constitutional Sleight and Political Fallout
On August 5, 2019, the Indian government unilaterally revoked J&K’s special status by:
Issuing a Presidential Order under Article 370(1)(d) applying all constitutional provisions to the state.
Using Article 370(3) to declare the article inoperative—ironically by using the state Governor as a stand-in for the “state government” in absence of an elected Assembly.
Downgrading J&K from statehood to two Union Territories (J&K and Ladakh).
This unprecedented move, while technically legal by the letter of the Indian Constitution, subverted the spirit of federalism and the original terms of accession. It also established a dangerous precedent: that a state’s special status can be revoked without legislative consent, using central rule as a substitute for democratic will.
Post-Abrogation Landscape: Promise vs. Reality
Security and Terrorism
The government claimed that Article 370 was a barrier to security and integration. Yet, five years later:
Terror attacks have continued, including the gruesome killings of tourists in Pahalgam and Hindu pilgrims in Reasi in 2024–25, exposing the hollowness of the “normalcy” narrative (Human Rights Watch, 2020; Scroll.in, 2024).
No noticeable decline in radicalization or cross-border infiltration has been observed.
Militancy has not ended; it has simply been suppressed by surveillance and lockdowns.
Demography and Land
Fears of demographic change—a key reason for the original land protection laws—have not materialized to a large degree:
No significant influx of settlers from other states has occurred.
Investment remains limited due to the fragile security environment and local distrust.
This undermines the justification that revocation would bring in national investors and help integrate Kashmir economically.
Education, Employment, and Development
Contrary to promises:
Unemployment remains high, especially among youth.
Education has not substantially improved, with schools affected by continued tensions, poor internet infrastructure (post-shutdown), and teacher shortages.
Major industrial or infrastructural investments have been limited to symbolic inaugurations, not systemic change.
Kashmiri Pandits and Social Healing
One of the most poignant failures is the non-return of the displaced Kashmiri Pandit community:
Despite symbolic policy announcements, no large-scale rehabilitation has taken place.
Security, housing, and social reconciliation remain unresolved.
Thus, social discourse has not healed, and communal wounds persist.
Political Process and Democratic Deficit
Even after restoring J&K’s Assembly:
BJP fielded no candidates in the Kashmir Valley in the 2024 Assembly elections, highlighting its lack of ground support and alienation from the region.
Popular Kashmiri parties were marginalized, and opposition voices stifled.
The real power remains with the Lieutenant Governor, appointed by the Centre, making the elected Assembly a weak structure.
This exposes the true achievement of the abrogation: not development or integration, but the reduction of a federal unit into a centrally controlled territory.
Conclusion: A Policy of Integration or Illusion?
The abrogation of Article 370 was marketed as a historical correction and a move toward national integration. Yet, in reality, it fulfilled none of the core promises: security has not significantly improved, investment has not arrived, social harmony remains absent, and democratic deficit has deepened.
Article 370 may have become hollow over time, but its symbolic presence at least served as a reminder of the unique terms of J&K’s accession and the unfulfilled promise of autonomy. Its removal, without consent, not only betrayed the federal spirit of India’s Constitution but also alienated an entire generation of Kashmiris.
What remains today is a Union Territory ruled by decree, policed by surveillance, and politically disenfranchised—a far cry from the pluralist, participatory, and federal vision promised in 1947.
References
1. Bose, S. (2003). Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace. Harvard University Press.
2. Chowdhury, A. (2019). The Abrogation of Article 370: Constitutional and Political Context. Economic and Political Weekly, 54(36).
3. Human Rights Watch. (2020). “India: Abuses in Kashmir After Article 370 Abrogation.” https://www.hrw.org
4. Korbel, J. (1954). Danger in Kashmir. Princeton University Press.
5. Menon, V. P. (1956). Integration of the Indian States. Orient Longman.
6. Noorani, A. G. (2011). Article 370: A Constitutional History of Jammu and Kashmir. Oxford University Press.
7. Scroll.in. (2024). Reasi and Pahalgam Attacks: Return of the Valley of Fear. Retrieved from https://www.scroll.in
No comments:
Post a Comment