Open Access Research Article
ART. 370 ABROGATION AND ITS IMPLICATION ON J&K POLITICS
Published Paper
Article Details
ART. 370'S
ABROGATION AND ITS IMPLICATION ON J&K POLITICS
AUTHORED BY
- RITIKA SHARMA
ABSTRACT
A major turning point in Indian
politics was the repeal of Art. 370 in J&K, which has profound effects on
the administration of the area and its relations with the national government. J&K
was given special status and exemption from some Indian Constitutional
restrictions under Art. 370, a measure that was only meant to be transitory.
Its abrogation, however, put a stop to this unique position and sparked
questions about national integrity, state autonomy, and the constitutional
framework. This Art. examines the background of Art. 370 throughout history,
how it affects the governance of J&K, and the legal and political
procedures involved in repealing it.
INTRODUCTION
There has been a great deal of
discussion and examination around the repeal of Art. 370 in Jammu &
Kashmir, both domestically and globally. Determining the historical background
and constitutional structure of Art. 370 is necessary to comprehend the
significance of this occurrence. The goal of this essay is to give a thorough
summary of the abrogation and how it has affected politics in J&K.
Art. 370, which was first proposed as
a temporary measure, gave J&K special status, enabling it to enjoy more
autonomy than other Indian states and its own constitution. But as time went
on, doubts about this provision's viability and legitimacy surfaced, especially
in light of its consequences for the integrity and unity of the
country. The Indian Parliament repealed Art. 370, ending J&K's special
status and bringing it closer to the country's other regions. Proponents of
increased regional integration and prosperity argued for this strategy, while
critics raised worries about the erosion of state authority and possible
effects on peace and stability.
The Art. will explore the origins,
development, and ultimate repeal of Art. 370 from a historical, legal, and
political standpoint. It attempts to illuminate the intricacies of J&K's
political environment and its connection with the Indian state by examining the
discussions and disputes around this constitutional clause.
1. THE BACKGROUND OF ART. 370
The Indian Constitution, which is the
longest in the world, consists of 448 Art.s, 25 parts, 12 schedules, and a
preamble. Of them, Art.s 35A and 370 are especially important to the state of J&K
because they regulate important facets of its legal system and governance.
The former monarch of J&K, Maharaja Hari
Singh, first proclaimed the area neutrality after India gained independence in
1947. But because the state's population is mostly Muslim and he was concerned
about Pakistani intrusions, he turned to the Indian government for support.
After some time, a deal was struck, and J&K joined India as a result of the
Instrument of Accession that was signed by both sides.
This accession agreement stated that
the state of J&K had to agree to any changes made to its provisions. As a
result, crucial occasions like the signing of the Instrument of Accession and
the publication of the Ruler's Proclamation in 1948 and 1949, respectively,
played a crucial role in the creation of the Indian Constitution.
The Indian Constitution was formally adopted
on November 17, 1956, and it became operative on January 26, 1957.
Interestingly, J&K continued to have distinct status as the only state with
specific provisions in the Indian constitution and its own constitution.
The State of J&K's Legislative
and Constitutional Status Prior to the Abrogation of Art. 370
The Indian Union is granted a special
status with regard to J&K under Art. 370 of the Indian Constitution, which
is frequently viewed as a temporary measure. According to this Art., the only
body with the power to enact laws for the area is the Union Government.
However, as stated in the Instrument of Accession, the state government may
pass laws on specific subjects only after consulting with the Union. Any
additional legislation need to be approved by the state government by a
presidential decree. The Constituent Assembly of J&K passed the state's
constitution on November 17, 1956, and it came into effect on January 26, 1957.
Interestingly, Art. 370 contains a clause that gives the president the
authority to change or repeal it, provided that the State's Constituent
Assembly makes suggestions beforehand before issuing notification.[1]
2. ART. 35A
Permanent residents of J&K are
entitled to particular rights and advantages under Art. 35A of the Indian
Constitution. A presidential order from 1954 established this clause in
accordance with Art. 370 of the Constitution, which deals with J&K's unique
status. Notwithstanding any other clause in the Constitution or any laws, the
definition of a permanent resident of J&K is fixed by Art. 35A. It
guarantees particular rights on working and buying property in the area.[2]
The Treaty of Amritsar, which
established J&K as a princely state and gave the area to Maharaja Gulab
Singh in 1846, is where Art. 35A had its start. The inhabitants of J&K were
granted Indian citizenship once Art. 370 was passed. Because of the Constituent
Assembly of J&K's advocacy for preserving the state's unique identity, Art.
35A was added to the Constitution.
The agreement between Sheikh
Abdullah, the prime minister of J&K, and former prime minister Jawaharlal
Nehru is what gives Art. 35A its significance. The objective of this agreement
was to govern the rights and advantages of the region's permanent residents
while implementing Indian citizenship law. Art. 35A, which was codified by the
President through the Constitution (Application to J&K) Order, 1954, gives
the state the authority to define who is considered a permanent resident and
what rights and advantages they are entitled to. Advocates of Art. 35A contend
that it protects J&K's identity as a state with a majority of Muslims.[3]
3. DEBATE ON ART. 370
Before Art. 370 was revoked, there
was a great deal of controversy, largely because Prime Minister Narendra Modi
demanded a thorough examination of the clause during the "Lalkaar
Rally" in Jammu on December 1, 2013. This call sparked a heated discussion
at the national level as well as within Jammu & Kashmir.
As the only state in India with a
special status because of Art. 370, J&K became the main source of conflict.
Parties and organisations that are headquartered in Kashmir, including the
Congress, JDU, CPI-M, CPI, and SP, have spoken in favour of keeping Art. 370 in
place, noting its advantages for the state and for safeguarding the distinct
character of Kashmiris. They fiercely opposed its removal, claiming that it was
an essential component in the state's integration with India.
On the other hand, those opposed to Art.
370, such as the Shiv Sena, Panun Kashmir, BJP, BSP, JKNPP, and RSS, argued
that the clause encouraged separatism and communalism in the Valley, upheld
regional discrimination, and violated the rights of minority communities and
other socioeconomic groups. They campaigned for its repeal in order to preserve
India's unity and integrity and allow state citizens to fully enjoy the rights
guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
With former Chief Minister Omar
Abdullah accepting the BJP's offer to take part in talks and indicated a
willingness to travel to Ahmedabad for the purpose, the argument between the
supporters and opponents of Art. 370 heated up. The BJP, however, turned down
the offer, claiming that they had capable leaders in Jammu available for the
conversation. After their initial interaction, Omar Abdullah did not respond to
messages.[4]
The controversial topics brought up during
this discussion highlighted how polarising Art. 370 is due to its alleged
anti-human, anti-democratic, and discriminatory elements.
4. REQUESTS FOR ABROGATION
As part of its general election
campaign in 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) promised to include J&K
into the Indian Union. Following the election, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
(RSS), the parent organisation of the BJP, and the party started working to
repeal Art. 370. Former prince regent and current Congress leader Karan Singh
stressed the need for a thorough examination of Art. 370 and argued in favour
of working cooperatively with the state of J&K.
But the Jammu & Kashmir High
Court decided in October 2015 that Art. 370 could not be repealed, changed, or
revoked. The clause in Art. 370 that gives the state's Constituent Assembly the
power to recommend the abrogation to the President served as the foundation for
this decision. Art. 370 was originally intended to be a temporary provision,
but because there was no recommendation of this kind prior to the dissolution
of the Constituent Assembly in 1957, it took on the attributes of a permanent
provision.
A similar position was reiterated by
the Indian Supreme Court on April 3, 2018, which upheld Art. 370's permanent
status. It said that because the State Constituent Assembly was no longer in
existence, the President could not meet the requirements necessary to revoke
the provision. In its 2019 general election manifesto, the BJP reaffirmed its
intention to bringing Jammu & Kashmir under the Indian Union.
The Kashmiri Hindu organisation Panun Kashmir,
which was founded in 1990, has continuously opposed Art. 370 and called for its
abolition as well as that of Art. 35A. Additionally, the J&K Workers Party
and IkkJutt Jammu have stated their support for the repeal of Art.s 370 and 35A
as well as the unification of J&K.[5]
5. ART. 370 ABROGATION: AUGUST 5,
2019
On August 5, 2019, Art. 370 was repealed,
marking a momentous historical occasion as the BJP kept its long-standing
pledge to do so. This action was made possible by Home Minister Amit Shah's
introduction of the J&K Reorganisation Bill in Parliament, which was
quickly approved by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. Following that, on August 9,
2019, the President gave his consent, which resulted in the J&K
Reorganisation Act, 2019, which essentially revoked Art. 35A and Art. 370,
which gave J&K unique status.[6]
The Congress and the CPI (M), among
other political groups, expressed strong opposition to the abrogation, but the
BJP and its allies, the BSP, AAP, BJD, and Shiv Sena, steadfastly supported it.
This action was directly motivated by the Hindutva movement and the BJP's goal
of unifying India.
Across the nation, opinions on the
abrogation were divided; supporters hailed it as an essential step towards
unification, while detractors denounced it as a betrayal of the people of J&K
and a breach of democracy. Notable individuals such as Ghulam Nabi Azad and
Kapil Sibal denounced the action, calling it disastrous and a dark day in the
history of India's constitution.
Certain legal scholars, like as Soli
Sorabjee, have stated that they believe Art. 370 should be repealed because it
is not a necessary component of the Constitution. Concerns were expressed,
meanwhile, about the way the abrogation was executed, especially the absence of
broad participation and consensus-building.
The J&K Legislature was dissolved in 2018
before the abrogation, and stringent security measures were implemented,
including as troop deployment, political leaders' detention, and a
communication blackout. The public's anxiety and discontent were sparked by
these acts, which reflected the intensely divided opinions on the subject.
6. PROBLEMS WITH ABROGATION
For an extended period, Art. 370 has
constituted the cornerstone of the constitutional arrangement between J&K
and the Indian mainland, functioning as a medium for the implementation of the
Indian Constitution within the territory. Art. 370 has been invoked by India
approximately forty-five times to extend constitutional provisions to J&K.
This provision gives the President the power to issue a presidential order
revoking J&K's special status. The whole Indian constitution, with all of
its modifications, was extended to the area in 1954. Disregarding the
importance of Art. 370, however, puts the precarious peace in a country already
embroiled in war at risk. The dynamics between J&K and other Indian states
are drastically changed by its exit. It also made it easier to remove Section
35A, which had prevented non-residents from acquiring land or relocating to J&K.
7. THE CONSEQUENCES OF ART. 370 ABROGATION
Revocation of Art. 370 brought about
a number of important developments in J&K. All of J&K's residents
became Indian citizens when the state lost its unique flag and the idea of dual
citizenship vanished. J&K now has the ability for Indians from other states
to register on the voter list, and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction has been
expanded to include the area. Furthermore, Parliament was given complete
authority to enact laws for J&K, and Indian people were granted the ability
to buy land in the territory.[7]
This action was said to have multiple
benefits. It promoted a sense of solidarity among all Indian residents and
inaugurated the idea of a One Nation, One Constitution. It was anticipated that
the abrogation would draw investments from the private sector, boosting the
state's economy and generating a variety of job prospects outside of tourism.
It was also expected that the central government would now be able to better
address corruption and offer inhabitants of J&K better medical care. In
order to fight terrorism in the area, authorities also sought to strengthen
security protocols.
However, the abrogation was not
without serious problems and drawbacks in addition to these ostensible
benefits. Tensions already present were exacerbated when many Kashmiri citizens
bemoaned losing their dual citizenship. Increased geopolitical tensions
resulted from the unilateral deletion of Art. 370, which further strained
India's already precarious ties with Pakistan. In addition, uncertainty and
political vulnerability were generated in the region by the practical
challenges brought about by the annulment of multiple presidential directives
made under Art. 370.
Furthermore, a portion of the
populace felt dread and instability due to the sudden revocation of Art. 370.
Concerns were raised about possible replication of these acts in other states
lacking sufficient democratic procedures, which could jeopardise the democratic
foundation of the nation. In addition, the repeal gave rise to unsettling
social trends, including the objectification of women in Kashmir and the danger
to their safety as a result of foreigners being able to marry Kashmiri women
without jeopardising their citizenship.[8]
8. RATIONALE AND DIRECT EFFECTS OF THE
REMOVAL OF SPECIAL STATUS
A number of changes to Art. 370 have
been made over time with the intention of improving administration, encouraging
integration, and advancing good governance in J&K. Art. 370 held great
significance for Kashmiris, representing their unique identity within India's
federal framework, even after these modifications.[9]
But New Delhi went ahead and unilaterally abolished Art. 370, dividing the
state into two union territories, imprisoning all Kashmiri politicians who
supported India, enforcing a strict communications ban, and sending a large
contingent of security personnel to the area.[10] This
move was defended by New Delhi as a way to promote improved governance,
economic expansion, and deal with militancy and corruption, which it felt were
related to Art. 370.[11]
The government imposed strict
security measures and a communication blackout in reaction to the growing
insurgent activities and unrest in Kashmir, which were made worse by an
increase in stone-pelting events and the presence of militants. Six months
after the revocation, the government still doesn't seem to know what to do, and
in spite of harming India's standing as a liberal democracy, it hasn't taken
any initiative to rebuild public confidence or normalise the situation.[12]
The Kashmir dispute gained
international attention after Art. 370 was revoked, prompting the United
Nations Security Council (UNSC) to meet twice behind closed doors to deliberate
on the matter. As worldwide concern grew, the US Congress issued two
resolutions criticising India's actions.[13]
In response, New Delhi extended an invitation to politicians and diplomats from
around the world, including European Union lawmakers and ambassadors, to come
to Kashmir on fact-finding missions. Nonetheless, the majority of the far-right
political groupings were represented by EU legislators during their first
visit, whereas diplomats from a variety of nations attended the second. The
ambassadors from the European Union notably abstained from the visit,
highlighting their misgivings.[14]
Although Kashmir is gradually
returning to normalcy, tensions remain high and the area is ready to go up at
the slightest provocation from the other side of the border.[15]
9. REVOCATION OF ART. 370 AND ITS EFFECTS
Significant changes have resulted
from the repeal of Art. 370, especially in J&K, which has heightened
tensions between India and Pakistan over the territory. Historically, there
have been several battles between the two countries over this sensitive issue.
Although there have been severe restrictions, like as curfews and communication
bans, since Art. 370 was revoked, the Kashmir valley has had relative peace
from August 2019 until November 2019. J&K's social, economic, and political
climate have all been significantly impacted by these actions.
Significant psychological pain has
been experienced by the populace as a result of the sudden removal of Art. 370,
which the people of J&K saw as a deprivation of long-standing privileges,
as well as the harsh communication blackout. Mental health problems have been
made worse by the lack of access to basic communication tools; a significant
section of the population suffers from anxiety disorders, depression, and
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The widespread trauma that people in the
area endure was brought to light by Médecins Sans Frontières' (MSF) 2015
Kashmir Mental Health Survey.[16]
Nonetheless, the areas have become
more linked with the rest of India as a result of the constitutional reform
that divided the former State of J&K into the union territories of J&K
and Ladakh. The inhabitants now enjoy the advantages of central laws that were
previously inaccessible to them as well as the rights guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution thanks to this integration. In both union territories, the
transition has also sparked socioeconomic advancement as seen by the abolition
of laws that discriminate against individuals and the development of just
political systems.
A significant step towards
all-encompassing development and peacebuilding in J&K is the establishment
of a three-tier system of local democracy, which includes Panchayati Raj
Institutions like Panches and Sarpanches, Block Development Councils, and
District Development Councils. In response to a query in the Rajya Sabha, Shri
G. Kishan Reddy, the Minister of State for Home Affairs, detailed these
advances, which show a determined attempt to establish stability and
advancement in the area despite the difficulties presented by the repeal of Art.
370.[17]
The vital link that separates India
and the state of J&K is Art. 370 of the Indian Constitution, sometimes
known as the "umbilical cord" of the document. In spite of its
importance, it is acknowledged as one of the most sensitive clauses in the
Constitution. Art. 370, which gives state legislatures superseding powers over
the Union Parliament, has established a sense of dual supremacy in contrast to
the Parliament's supreme authority to enact and alter laws throughout the
nation.[18]
Due to this clause, J&K now has a
number of unusual situations. Most significantly, residents of the state are
dual citizens, meaning they have citizenship rights in both India and the
state, but citizens of other regions of India do not. This inequality affects
people's rights according to their residency status and includes voting and
property rights. Furthermore, exemptions from some taxes and regulations cause
economic imbalances and can result in discrimination against non-state citizens
and exploitation by wealthy landlords.
Psychological barriers have been created
by Art. 370 between the people of J&K and those of India, hence sustaining
the two-nation thesis. Furthermore, it has been said that governance frameworks
in J&K, such as the Right to Information Act, are opaque and unaccountable,
which exacerbates socioeconomic inequality.
The lack of constitutional safeguards
and centralised welfare schemes in J&K has resulted in the deprivation of
vital support and opportunities for disadvantaged groups, including scheduled
castes and tribes. Even though they make up a sizable fraction of the
population, they are not afforded the same political representation or
affirmative action opportunities as their counterparts in other regions of
India due to systemic prejudice. Their marginalisation is made worse by the non-implementation
of constitutional requirements pertaining to reservation in employment and
services.
Moreover, the state government's
unwillingness to implement decentralisation policies, such those described in
the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts, demonstrates a lack of
dedication to inclusive governance and grassroots empowerment. Tribal groups,
despite their disadvantage in terms of location, receive little assistance and
face obstacles in their attempts to obtain political participation.
Affirmative action laws in J&K urgently
need to be reevaluated in light of these difficulties, and structural
injustices and inequities must be addressed. A thorough evaluation of Art.
370's effects on the region's growth and integration with the rest of India is
imperative, as seen by the ongoing discourse surrounding it.
The J&K Reorganisation Act of
2019 was passed in response to Art. 370's withdrawal, dividing J&K into two
union territories: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Anticipating possible civil
upheaval in the Kashmir Valley when J&K's special status was removed, this
decision was made. It is anticipated that New Delhi will have more direct
control over the police and the upkeep of public order, as well as more local
legislative and administrative authority in J&K, as a result of this shift
to union territory status.[19]
The Indian Home Minister, Amit Shah,
gave the parliament the assurance that, when normalcy was restored and the
right circumstances materialised, the federal government would eventually grant
J&K's union territory full "state" status. There could be two
important outcomes from the ruling BJP's intention to remove Art. 370. First
off, this move could benefit the BJP politically in J&K as well as in the
rest of India. Second, in reaction to efforts at third-party mediation, New
Delhi may now declare even more vehemently that the Kashmir dispute is
exclusively a "internal" concern of India.[20]
The possibility of civil unrest,
terrorist attacks in the Valley, racial tensions in J&K, and the internationalisation
of the Kashmir conflict are just a few of the concerns that the government is
acutely aware of. In addition to tackling both internal and external issues,
New Delhi hopes to demonstrate its control over J&K by removing Art. 370.[21]
India's decision to revoke J&K's
special status is probably going to make things worse between the two
countries. India's quick action may have been inspired by recent geopolitical
events, such as the expected withdrawal of US soldiers from Afghanistan and the
possible return of an insurgency led by the Taliban. India's decision was
probably influenced by worries over President Trump's comments about mediating
the Kashmir dispute and the potential for terrorist groups with ties to
Pakistan to obtain training in an Afghanistan that is independent of the United
States.
An alteration in India's stance
towards the Kashmir dispute is indicated by the removal of J&K's special
status. Instead of promoting bilateral talks with Pakistan, India wants to
present the problem as one that exists within. The existing partition of
Kashmir's land may become permanent with the formalisation of the Line of
Control and International Boundary. The defence minister of India says that the
only topic of discussion in the future with Pakistan will be Kashmir, which is
governed by Pakistan. Pakistan is anticipated to react forcefully to this shift
in narrative, as demonstrated by diplomatic measures like the expulsion of the
Indian High Commissioner and the suspension of commerce. Islamabad is
increasing the likelihood that the J&K dispute would become a worldwide
problem by stepping up its diplomatic operations around the world. These
efforts include extending contacts to China, the US, the UN, and the
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.[22] India,
the United States, and other nations have all declared Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hizbul
Mujahideen, and Jaish-e-Mohammed as terrorist organisations.
10. PUBLIC VIEWS REGARDING ABROGATION
The removal of Art. 370, which gave J&K
unique status, has caused conflicting feelings among the local populace. Some
see the abolition of autonomy as a threat, especially in the Kashmir Valley,
while others see it as symbolic and emotionally meaningful. Fears of cultural
and ethnic eroding as well as possible changes in the population are among the
concerns.[23] The
drafting of new domicile rights legislation by the central government has
caused alarm among the local population, who fear changes in the population and
employment prospects.[24]
The administration has withstood
criticism and retracted a contentious announcement, but it is still debating
ways to grant non-Kashmiris access to employment, land, and education. With the
new government declaring previous state legislation null and void, anxiety and
confusion have been heightened by the communication blackout from New Delhi
following the revocation.[25]
The abrogation is generally supported by the Kashmiri Pandit population,
especially by those who were compelled to flee the area in the 1990s, who see
it as a step in the right direction towards regaining their safety and rights.
Nonetheless, certain Kashmiri Pandit organisations are calling for peace, the
return of independence, and special status. In general, the people of J&K
have expressed a wide range of complex feelings and worries in response to the
repeal of Art. 370.[26]
11. ORGANISATIONS AT THE NATIONAL AND
GLOBAL LEVELS REGARD THE ABROGATION OF J&K'S SPECIAL STATUS
Many nations and international
organisations supported the repeal of Art. 370, which gave J&K special
status, even though the majority of them saw it as an internal Indian issue.
Bhutan, the Maldives, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal have all stated that the
modifications to the Indian Constitution are matters of internal concern to India.
Bhutan underlined the value of maintaining peace along borders, while the prime
minister of Sri Lanka recognised that Ladakh is an Indian state whose people
are primarily Buddhist. India's key ally Afghanistan refrained from associating
itself with attempts by Pakistan to associate the Kashmir dispute with Kabul.[27]
Reactions from the European Union
(EU) were not uniform; several members voiced worries about human rights and
the state of affairs in Kashmir. But a group of right-wing EU Parliament lawmakers
visited Srinagar and praised India's efforts while emphasising the need to
fight terrorism.[28]
The Organisation of Islamic
Cooperation (OIC) demanded the easing of limitations imposed in the region and
advocated for a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir problem through a
plebiscite. Several OIC members enjoy cordial ties with India, which allays
India's worries about the organization's position, notwithstanding Pakistan's
attempts to mobilise support for the group.[29]
The UN Security Council reiterated
its preference for bilateral resolutions between India and Pakistan while
taking a mute position, skipping official sessions and pronouncements. India
stressed the international recognition of its bilateral policy, while China and
Russia called for compliance with UN decisions over Kashmir.
After Art. 370 was repealed, Amnesty
International voiced concerns about human rights violations in Kashmir and
emphasised the need for international attention to the situation.
The removal of Art. 370 has a
substantial impact on J&K's economy. Even though the early disruptions
resulted in significant losses, the government made investments and developed
infrastructure in an effort to promote economic growth. Concerns were raised
regarding the Darbar Move tradition's potential effects on Jammu's economy when
it was suspended. Nonetheless, the government's attempts to draw in capital
raised interest from international businesses and presented chances for
economic expansion, indicating a change in the nature of economic activity
following the revocation.
12. INDIA'S HISTORIC DECISION MARKED THE
BEGINNING IN A NEW ERA FOR JAMMU & KASHMIR
The state of J&K (J&K) has
undergone a dramatic change in the socioeconomic environment with the
elimination of Art.s 370 and 35A. These constitutional clauses previously
restricted the transfer of land, which hampered industrial development and
private investment. Because of this, J&K fell behind in important areas
like tourism, health care, and education, which restricted job possibilities
and growth overall.
But a new age of progress is expected
if these limitations are lifted. Increased industrialization and private
investment are anticipated in the area, which will benefit locals by creating
jobs and fostering wealth. Furthermore, industries with a lot of potential for
growth include horticulture, food processing, and handicrafts. These industries
stand to gain from more chances for both domestic and foreign cooperation.
With more money invested in
facilities and infrastructure, the region's enormous tourism potential should
be realised. This will enhance visitor arrivals and generate additional job and
income opportunities. Public-private partnerships (PPP) are also projected to
drive growth in the education and healthcare sectors by guaranteeing that
everyone has access to high-quality education and healthcare services.
Additionally, the abolition of Art.
370 empowers marginalised groups like women, children, scheduled tribes, and
lower castes. In addition to all federal laws safeguarding women's and
children's rights being upheld, women who marry outside of the state will now
have complete ownership rights. Backward castes will enjoy full benefits of
reservation in work and education, while scheduled tribes will be granted
political representation and protection of their forest rights.
In addition, the region will
experience increased accountability and transparency as anti-corruption laws
and supervision procedures are implemented, guaranteeing that development monies
are disbursed to the right people. Furthermore, the implementation of
progressive central laws will help marginalised groups within society,
promoting diversity and maintaining the rights to culture and religion of all
people in J&K.
All things considered, the repeal of Art.
370 represents a fresh start for J&K, bringing with it a period of
equitable growth, citizen empowerment, and advancement.[30]
13. CONCLUSION
Reactions from regional and
international organisations to the repeal of J&K's special status under Art.
370 of the Indian Constitution have been mixed. With profound effects on the
political, social, and legal landscape of the area, India's momentous decision
marked the start of a new era. Diverse public opinions on the abrogation have
emerged, which reflects the intricate sociopolitical dynamics of the area.
While some applauded the action as a step in the right direction towards
increased integration and development, others voiced worries about possible
negative effects and how it might affect J&Ki citizens' rights.
The goal of promoting greater
national unity and development in the area served as the justification for the
abolition of special status. Reorganising J&K into two distinct Union
Territories—J&K and Ladakh—was one of the abrogation's immediate impacts.
Nonetheless, the revocation of Art. 370 has had a variety of effects, including
those on human rights, security, and government. Human rights breaches,
tensions with Pakistan, and worries about the return of normalcy are just a few
of the difficulties and issues that have surfaced. The August 5, 2019,
judgement, which marked a dramatic change in India's policy towards J&K, is
today regarded as historical. It came after years of arguments and pleas over
whether or not Art. 370 and Art. 35A needed to be repealed. The long-running
discussion around Art. 370 reflects varying opinions regarding the legislative
and constitutional status of J&K before its abrogation. Another point of
dispute concerned Art. 35A, which gave J&K citizens particular privileges. Art.
370's historical roots can be traced back to the period of India's independence
and the rise of princely kingdoms. Because of its specific characteristics, J&K
was given a special status within the Indian Union that reflected the complex
political history of the region. In summary, the revocation of Art. 370 has
marked a turning point in the history of J&K and will have a significant
impact on both the state's future development and that of the larger region.
The ruling has generated a great deal of discussion and examination, bringing
to light the difficulties with identity, governance, and territorial integrity
in India's federal system.
[1] Cambridge University Press.(n.d.).
Abrogation. Retrieved December 2020,from https://dictionary.cambridge.org
[2] Teng, M. K. (2002). Kashmir, Art.
370 (Reprint). Anmol Publications. Retrieved April 19,2020, from
http://ikashmir.net/Art.370/index.html.
[3] Surana , A. (2022 May 24).
“Abrogation of Art. 35A and Art. 370”.GETLEGAL INDIA. Retrieved, August 13,
2022, from http://getlegalindia.com
[4] Tarunjyoti Tewari, "Art. 370 Of
The Constitution Of India: Need Parliamentary Debate".www.academia.edu
[5] The Indian Express, Hindustan
Times & Daily Excelsior
[6] Government of India. Abrogation of
Art. 370 Turned Historical. Press Information Bureau. Retrieved December
20,2019, from http://www.pib.gov.in/
[7] Anushita Surana “Abrogation of
Art. 35A and Art. 370” GETLEGAL INDIA.
[8] Tarunjyoti Tewari, "Art. 370
Of The Constitution Of India: Need Parliamentary
Debate".www.academia.edu.Op.cit.
[9] Louise Tillin, “The Fragility of
India’s Federalism,” The Hindu,August8, 2019.
https://www.thehindu.com/2019/08/08/opinion/lead/the-fragility-of-India’
federalism/Art.28872165.ece
[10] Rebecca Ratcliffe, “Kashmir
leaders placed under arrest amid security crackdown”, The
Guardian,August5,2019,https://www.theguardian.com
[11] PM Narendra Modi speech Updates:
“Art. 370 was a hurdle for development of Jammu & Kashmir”, Business today,
8 August 2019. https://www.businesstoday.in -
[12] 1,999 stone-pelting incidents in
2019 in J-K, 1,193 post abrogation of Art. 370 The Economic Times,
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com
[13] Situation in Kashmir violates
human rights: US Congress woman Debbie Dingell, The Economic Times, 14 January,
2020, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/
[14] UN Security Council discusses
Kashmir, China urges India and Pakistan to ease tensions, UN News, 16 August,
2020. https://news.un.org/en/story/ 2019/08/1044401
[15] Sudhi Ranjan Sen, Government
warned of spike in violence in J&K, no troop withdrawal, Hindustan Times,
11 January, 2020, hindustantimes.com/india-news/
[16] Muntazar Kashmir Mental Health
Survey Report, 2015. People’s archive of Rural India (2016). Retrieved December
20,2020,from http://ruralindiaonline.org/.
[17] Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs.(2021, February 3). Impact of Abrogation of Art. 370 On J&K.
Press Information Bureau. Retrieved April 21, 2021, from http://www.pib.gov.in/
[18] Kulsherestha, D.P.(2016).Art.
370:Constitutional Obligations and Compulsion. IJELLH,IV(I), p.98-100.
http://doi.org/10.24113/ijellh
[19] Wani,Ajaz.( 2020).Life in Kashmir
After Art. 370. ORF Special Report.28 January 2020, Observer research
Foundation. Retrieved 13 April, 2020, from http://www.orfonline.org/?amp
[20] Sharma, S. 2019. The Political
Impact of India’s Removal of J&K’s Special Status. South Asian Voices,
August 19.
[21] Sharma, S. 2019. The Political
Impact of India’s Removal of J&K’s Special Status. South Asian Voices,
August 19.
[22] Sharma, S. 2019. The Political
Impact of India’s Removal of J&K’s Special Status. South Asian Voices,
August 19.
[23] South Asia Citizens Web, India:
Sixth and Seventh Reports of the Concerned Citizens’ Group on KashmirSep17-18,
2019 andNov22-26, 2019, 18 December, 2019. Retrieved from, http://www.sacw.net/
Art.14242.html,
[24] Indo Asian News Service, “J&K
residents to get domicile rights for land, govt jobs”,
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/
[25] Peerzada Ashiq Focus turns to
domicile laws, land, jobs in proposed Union Territories of J&K, Ladakh, The
Hindu, https://www.thehindu.com/news/-
[26] Naseer Ganai, Arrests under PSA
amount to “Thought Crime” say Kashmir Lawyers as 100s remain under detention,
Outlook, 3October, 2019. https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/
[27] “Outrage over Right-Wing Euro-MPs’
Kashmir Visit,” BBC, October 30, 2019,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50231022;
[28] “EU Parliamentarians Hold Press
Conference in Jammu & Kashmir,” YouTube, uploaded by DD News, 2019,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wccY6hzP3hM.
[29] Sodhi ,J. (2021,May 27). The Art.
370 Amendments on J&K: Explaining the Global Silence. Published by Observer
Research Foundation,(318). http://www.orfonline.org/?amp.
[30] Provisional impediments in
resolving the kashmir crisis: ananalytical study with special reference to the
constitution of india submitted to jagran lakecity university, bhopal (m.p.)
Article Information
ART. 370 ABROGATION AND ITS IMPLICATION ON J&K POLITICS
Authors: RITIKA SHARMA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/05/03
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.