Image Credits - Global Village Space
The recent decision by India’s Supreme Court upholds the government’s move to revoke the special status of Indian-administered Kashmir in 2019. This highlights the constitutional standpoint that Article 370, granting the region a level of autonomy, was deemed a provisional measure. This legal development is situated within the broader historical context of the Kashmir conflict.
History
The Kashmir Conflict was a longstanding issue marked by territorial disputes and conflicting claims between India and Pakistan. The region, strategically located in the Himalayas, has been a focal point of contention since the independence of both nations from British rule in 1947.
The roots of the Kashmir conflict trace back to the signing of the Instrument of Accession in 1947, where the Hindu ruler of Muslim-majority Kashmir agreed to join India under certain conditions. Article 370 was introduced as an interim arrangement during this period of transition, granting Kashmir a special status within the Indian Union.
Over the years, the complex dynamics of the region led to tensions and armed conflicts, with three out of four wars between India and Pakistan being fought over Kashmir. The United Nations mediated a ceasefire in 1949, dividing the region into Pakistani- and Indian-administered territories.
What is Article 370?
Article 370, a temporary provision embedded in the Indian Constitution, played a pivotal role in shaping the governance of the region of Jammu and Kashmir. It was enacted to address the intricate circumstances surrounding the state’s accession to India in 1947. This article granted Jammu and Kashmir a distinctive set of privileges. Notably, the region had the autonomy to maintain its constitution and flag, standing as a testament to the nuanced approach taken during the integration of princely states into the newly independent India.
The autonomy granted by Article 370 extended beyond symbolic gestures; Jammu and Kashmir had substantial legislative powers. It could make its laws, and residents enjoyed specific rights related to citizenship and property ownership. However, certain critical domains such as defence, foreign affairs, finance, and communications remained under the jurisdiction of the Indian government. This intricate arrangement aimed to respect the unique historical and demographic aspects of the region.
In a historic move in 2019, the government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi took steps to revoke Article 370, thereby altering the dynamics of Jammu and Kashmir’s relationship with the Indian Union. The objective was to foster closer integration and align the region’s governance with the rest of the country. This decision stirred significant debate and had far-reaching implications, not only domestically but also in terms of geopolitical considerations.
The recent Supreme Court ruling has further solidified the legal standing of this decision. The court upheld the constitutionality of revoking Article 370, emphasizing its status as a temporary provision due to war conditions and validating the 2019 decision to revoke it. This verdict has marked the end of the special autonomy that Jammu and Kashmir once held, signalling a new chapter in the complex history of this region and its relationship with the Indian Union. The implications of this decision extend beyond legal matters, impacting the political landscape and relations between the Hindu-majority Indian government and the Muslim-majority population in Kashmir.
Reactions from Pakistan
The downgrading of Article 370 in 2019 prompted Pakistan to take significant diplomatic measures, including the cessation of all trade with India and the suspension of cross-border transport services. Unsurprisingly this time too, Pakistan swiftly dismissed Monday’s judgment on the matter, as articulated by Jalil Abbas Jilani, the caretaker Foreign Minister of Pakistan.
Jilani strongly emphasized that India’s unilateral decisions regarding the status of Jammu and Kashmir hold “no legal value” as India lacks the right to make such decisions against the will of the Kashmiri people and Pakistan, characterizing Jammu and Kashmir as an internationally recognised dispute.
Asserting that Pakistan does not acknowledge the supremacy of the Indian Constitution over Jammu and Kashmir, Jilani contended that any process subservient to the Indian Constitution carries no legal significance. Jilani assured continued support for the people of Kashmir in their right to self-determination and announced plans for a stakeholder meeting to decide Pakistan’s future course of action.
Meanwhile, former Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned the verdict as “biased,” alleging a violation of international laws and UN resolutions. He accused the Indian Supreme Court of betraying the sacrifices of millions of Kashmiris.
Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the revocation of Article 370, eliminating the special status of Indian-administered Kashmir, has far-reaching consequences across multiple dimensions. Domestically, the ruling carries significant political implications, reinforcing the government’s commitment to integrating Jammu and Kashmir into the broader Indian Union. This development is poised to impact the political landscape within the country, particularly in the context of the region’s Muslim-majority population, and may shape the dynamics leading up to future elections. On the regional front, the verdict is expected to influence relations between India and Pakistan, both of which lay claim to Kashmir in its entirety.
As India approaches general elections, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) sees this verdict as a significant boost, as it fulfils a campaign promise to end Article 370. The broader international community continues to observe the situation closely, recognizing the historical complexities and the potential for further geopolitical implications in the region.