CRITICAL ISSUES SURROUNDING THE ABROGATION OF ARTICLES 370 AND 35A IN INDIAN ILLLEGALLY OCCUPIED JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Jammu Kashmir Abrogation

The abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A by the Indian government on August5, 2019, has ignited a firestorm of debate and controversy, both within Indian and across the globe. These constitutional provisions had long been ?the cornerstone of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status within the Indian Union, granting the region significant autonomy and unique privileges. Their sudden removal has not only reshaped the political landscape of the region but has also raised profound legal, human rights, and geopolitical questions. The decision to revoke these articles was presented by the Indian government as bold move to integrate Jammu and Kashmir more fully into the Indian state, ostensibly to spur economic development and combat separatism. However, this narrative has been met with widespread skepticism and opposition. Critics argue that the abrogation was executed unilaterally and without proper consultation, undermining democratic principles and exacerbating tensions in a already volatile region. In this article I will expores the critical issues surrounding abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A, examining the legal complexities, human rights implications, and the broader socio-political and international ramifications.

HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND

To understand the critical issues surrounding the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A, it is essential to delve into their historical and constitutional context. Articles 370, introduced in 1949, granted Jammu and Kashmir a special autonomous status within the Indian Union, allowing it to have its own constitution and considerable autonomy over internal matters, except in defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications. This provision stemmed from the instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh in 1947. Article 35A, enacted in 1954 through a presidential order, empowered the state legislature to define ‘Permanent residents’ and grant them special rights, including property ownership and access to government jobs, aiming to preserve the region’s unique demographic and cultural identity. These articles were seen as the foundation of Jammu and Kashmir’s relationship with India, balancing integration with autonomy. However, on August 5, 2019, the Indian government abrogated these articles through a presidential order and a parliamentary resolution, arguing that the special status impeded the region’s development and integration. This decision executed without the state assembly’s consent due to its dissolution and the region being under president’s role, sparked controversy and legal challenges. ?Supporters hailed the move as essential for equality and development, believing it would enhance governance and investment. Conversely, critics saw it as unconstitutional, bypassing the requirement for the state’s consent, undermining India’s federal structure, and potentially leading to demographic changes, cultural erosion, and increased alienation among residents. The Abrogation has thus raised significant legal, human rights, socio-political, and international concerns that underscores its profound impact on the region.

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS:

1. Constitutional legality:?the legality of the abrogation has been hotly contested. Critics argue that the process employed to revoke Articles 370 and 35A was constitutionally questionable. The Indian government used a presidential Order and a bill passed by Parliament to effect this change, bypassing the Jammu and Kashmir state assembly. This has been viewed as a violation of the federal structured of the Indian constitution and an erosion of democratic norms according to (Rao, 2019). The unilateral nature of the decision, critics argue, undermines the principle of consent and representation that is central to democratic governance.

2.procedural integrity:?The procedure followed to abrogate these articles has raised questions about procedural integrity. According to critics, the abrogation was carried out without adequate consultation with stakeholders in Jammu and Kashmir. The move was executed undr the guise of a “Presidential order” and legislative enactments, which many argue lacked the necessary legislative process within the state itself according to sharma, 2019. this led to concerns about the erosion of state autonomy and the undermining of the democratic process.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIO-POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS

1. Human rights Violations: One of the most immediate and distressing consequences of the abrogation has been the widespread human rights violations reported in Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian government imposed a strict security lockdown, curbing freedoms of movement, expression, and access to information. The region was placed under a communications blackout, with severe restrictions on internet access and phone services. Human rights watch has documented these measures as severe breaches of civil liberties and a means of stifling dissent and suppressing opposition to the abrogation (Human Rights Watch, 2019 report) India: Kashmir Lockdown undermines Human rights.

2. Socio-economic impact:?the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A has also had significant socio-economic implications. The special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir allowed for unique property and residency laws that were designed to protect the rights of legal residents. With the removal of Articles 35A, there have been concerns about potential changes in land ownership laws and property rights, which could lead to increased land acquisition by non-residents and affect the socio-economic fabric of the region (according to article of Mohn, in 2020) as he mentioned that the economic disruption caused by the lockdown and the ongoing instability has further exacerbated the challenges faced by the local populations.

3. Political and social Unrest:?According to the article of Bhat, 2020, (The Political Fallout of Article 370 abrogation. The Hindu) as the abrogation has exacerbated political and social tensions in Jammu and Kashmir. The decision has sparked widespread protests and unrest, both within the region and among the Kashmiri diaspora globally. The move has been seen as an affront to the aspirations of many kashmiris who view it as a denial of their historical and political rights. This unrest highlights the deep-seated dissatisfaction and resistance towards the central government’s policies.

INTERNATIONAL REACTIONS AND DIPLOMATIC CONSEQUENCES

1. International criticism:?The international community has had varied reactions to the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A. Pakistan, particular, has vocally condemned the move, arguing that it violates United nations resolutions and undermines the rights of the Kashmiri people. The United Nations and various Human rights organizations have expressed conern about the human rights siuation in the region, calling for international intervention and dialogue according to (Khan,M. 2020 International Reactions to the Abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A. Foreign Affairs.). on the other hand, some countries have supported india’s internal decisions, relecting the complex geopolitical dynamics surrounding the issue.

2. Diplomatic strains: The abrogation has strained diplomatic relations between India and its neighboring countries, particularly Paksitan. The issue has become a focal point in regional diplomacy, incluencing bilteral relations relational stability. The ongoing tensions have implications for regional secrutiy and have complicated the prospects for dialogue and resolution of the Kashmir conflict as (Rizvi 2020).

ENDING REMARKS:

In the end many kashmiris, like Yasmeen Mir, a school teacher from srinager, feel deeply affected by the abrogation of articles 370 and 35A. She shared, “The government’s decision has not only stripped us of our special status but has also instilled a sense of fear and uncertianty about our future. While they speak of development, what we see is a loss of our identity and rights. Our voices were ignored in this decision, and the heavy-handed approach has only deepned our msitrust and alienation. It’s hard to belive that true progress can come at the cost of our autonomy and dignity.

#kashmir #negotiation #peace #battle #stop #Soft #kind

?