In a spirited address at an election rally in Maharashtra, Prime Minister Narendra Modi firmly stood by his government’s 2019 decision to revoke the partial autonomy granted to the state of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Modi emphasized that no force could reverse the revocation, reiterating his commitment to maintaining a singular constitutional framework throughout India, including in Jammu and Kashmir.
“Only the constitution of Babasaheb Ambedkar will operate in Kashmir,” Modi said, invoking the name of B.R. Ambedkar, a key architect of India’s constitution and a prominent figure from Maharashtra. “No power in the world can restore Article 370 in Kashmir.”
The Prime Minister’s remarks came days after newly elected representatives in Jammu and Kashmir passed a resolution seeking to reinstate Article 370, signaling a renewed demand from local lawmakers to regain some level of autonomy for the region. Modi’s comments, however, made it clear that his government views the 2019 abrogation as permanent and non-negotiable.
In August 2019, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi, unilaterally abrogated Article 370, a provision in the Indian Constitution that granted the state of Jammu and Kashmir a unique status with significant autonomy. The measure allowed Jammu and Kashmir its own constitution and the power to legislate on all matters except for foreign affairs, defense, and communications. The state was also permitted to have its own flag and special property rights, which prevented non-residents from owning property in the region.
The decision to remove this semi-autonomous status was not without controversy. In the immediate aftermath of the revocation, the government split Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. While Ladakh was made a union territory without a legislature, Jammu and Kashmir was allowed to retain a legislative assembly with limited powers.
However, under this new structure, the central government retained authority over critical areas such as policing, public order, and financial matters, effectively limiting the legislative powers of local representatives. In the aftermath of the revocation, a substantial military presence was deployed in Jammu and Kashmir, internet and mobile networks were suspended for extended periods, and political leaders were detained as part of a security crackdown aimed at preventing unrest.
The 2019 abrogation of Article 370 has since remained a focal point of political tension in Jammu and Kashmir, with local parties consistently challenging the move. At the recent local elections in September and October, the newly-elected representatives made a bid to reinstate the semi-autonomous status, passing a resolution aimed at reviving Article 370. However, the ultimate power to reinstate such a status rests with the central government, and Modi’s recent remarks indicate that this power is unlikely to be exercised.
The Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC), the region’s ruling party, made a commitment during the election campaign to advocate for the restoration of Article 370. Speaking on the election results and the recent resolution, a JKNC spokesperson remarked:
“This is not just a matter of politics but a matter of our identity and rights. The people of Jammu and Kashmir deserve to have a say in the decisions that directly impact their lives, and the restoration of Article 370 is central to that aim.”
The JKNC’s stance aligns with those of other regional parties, which argue that the 2019 decision undermined the unique cultural and political identity of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. However, with Modi’s BJP government holding a parliamentary majority, the political will necessary for any potential reversal of the 2019 decision appears to be firmly absent.
In the new governance model established post-2019, Jammu and Kashmir’s legislative assembly possesses limited powers compared to those of other Indian states. While the assembly can legislate on various local issues, its authority is circumscribed when it comes to matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the central government, such as public order, policing, and any policy decisions with financial implications. For such matters, Jammu and Kashmir’s lawmakers must seek the approval of the region’s federally appointed administrator, Dilbagh Singh.
This setup has led to frustrations among local leaders, who argue that their legislative powers are curtailed to the extent that self-governance remains unattainable. Many advocates for the restoration of Article 370 argue that without significant autonomy, it will be difficult for Jammu and Kashmir to effectively address its unique challenges or represent the will of its people.
Political observers and opposition leaders also caution that these limitations could exacerbate frustrations among the population, potentially leading to greater instability in a region that has already endured decades of conflict and economic deprivation.
The Kashmir issue is rooted in a longstanding dispute between India and Pakistan, both of whom claim the territory in its entirety, although each administers a portion of it. Since gaining independence from British rule in 1947, India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of which were primarily focused on the Kashmir issue.
Jammu and Kashmir remains the only Muslim-majority territory within India, a factor that has contributed to its complex and sensitive status in the country’s national identity and geopolitical strategy. For decades, separatist movements have fueled insurgency efforts, leading to clashes with Indian security forces and making the region one of the most heavily militarized areas in the world.
The 2019 abrogation of Article 370 was portrayed by the BJP government as an essential step toward fully integrating Jammu and Kashmir into India, which it argued would promote economic development and stability. However, critics contend that the move has led to further isolation and disenfranchisement for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Some activists have even argued that this step has intensified local resentment and may fuel more anti-India sentiments in the region.
The post-2019 environment in Jammu and Kashmir has raised several human rights concerns, with numerous reports indicating that restrictions on communication and movement have disrupted daily life, education, and business operations. Several political leaders and activists have also expressed concerns about mass detentions and reported instances of alleged abuse by security forces.
Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have pointed out that curbs on freedoms, including prolonged internet shutdowns and heightened military surveillance, have resulted in a climate of fear and uncertainty. The United Nations has also voiced concern about these issues, urging the Indian government to take steps toward restoring normalcy and safeguarding the rights of Jammu and Kashmir’s residents.
In response, the Indian government has argued that the measures were necessary to ensure security and prevent any potential escalations of violence in a historically volatile region. However, local leaders and international observers have noted that peace in Jammu and Kashmir cannot be achieved without addressing the grievances of its people and ensuring respect for democratic rights and freedoms.
With Prime Minister Modi’s recent statements signaling an unwavering stance on Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir’s path forward remains uncertain. The BJP government maintains that the integration of Jammu and Kashmir into India’s constitutional framework will facilitate economic growth and development in the region. However, opposition parties and regional political leaders argue that the region’s unique cultural, historical, and religious identity necessitates some degree of self-governance.
Despite the challenges, the recent elections in Jammu and Kashmir represent a step toward restoring democratic processes in the region. Some observers are optimistic that increased political engagement at the local level could serve as a foundation for addressing grievances and fostering dialogue between regional leaders and the central government.
However, achieving sustainable peace in Jammu and Kashmir will likely require a comprehensive approach that addresses security concerns while also providing for the socio-economic development and political inclusion of the region’s people. The call for Article 370’s restoration may persist as a symbolic and practical demand, one that resonates deeply within the hearts and minds of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
For now, the BJP government appears steadfast in its decision to deny any reconsideration of Article 370, underscoring the primacy of a unified Indian Constitution across all states and territories. As Modi asserted in his speech, this is a constitutional issue with deep national implications, not just a regional political matter. However, the persistence of local demands for autonomy and the symbolic significance of Article 370 may ensure that this issue remains a subject of contention for years to come.
