LEGAL STATUS OF KASHMIR: POST REVOKING ARTICLE 370 & 35A
“The Dispute is Yet Far Away from Being Settled”
The Kashmir issue remains one of the longest-running disputes between India and Pakistan and continues to have major implications for peace and stability in South Asia.
Over the decades, the dispute has passed through periods of conflict, diplomatic engagement and political change. A major turning point came in August 2019, when the Indian government revoked the special constitutional status previously enjoyed by Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370.
The move fundamentally altered Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional relationship with India. Article 370 had provided the region with a special constitutional arrangement, while Article 35A empowered the local legislature to define permanent residents and determine certain rights relating to property, employment and other benefits.
Following the constitutional changes of August 2019, the former State of Jammu and Kashmir was reorganised into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
These measures generated intense political disagreement. The Indian government defended the changes as part of greater constitutional and administrative integration, while Pakistan, Kashmiri political groups and other critics challenged their political and legal consequences.
The changes also raised wider concerns regarding political representation, property rights, demographic change and the future status of the Kashmir dispute.
POST-2019 TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS OF THE KASHMIRI PEOPLE — THE UNTOLD STORY
The period following the August 2019 constitutional changes was accompanied by extensive security restrictions and communication controls across the region.
According to the perspective presented in the source article, Kashmiris experienced severe disruption to daily life as curfews, barricades, communication restrictions and security deployments were imposed.
Political leaders, lawyers, traders, activists, academics and other individuals were detained during the security crackdown.
The source also highlights concerns regarding restrictions on journalists, political activity and freedom of movement.
Human rights organisations and Kashmiri political groups have repeatedly raised allegations concerning arbitrary detention, excessive use of security laws, restrictions on civil liberties and other human rights violations.
The Public Safety Act has remained particularly controversial because of its use in preventive detention.
From this perspective, the post-2019 security environment has deepened political alienation and contributed to continuing resentment among sections of the Kashmiri population.
INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Since 2019, the Indian government has introduced a series of administrative, electoral and legal changes in Jammu and Kashmir.
Critics of these policies argue that some of these measures could alter political representation and the demographic composition of the region.
One important development was the delimitation process.
In May 2022, the Delimitation Commission announced new electoral constituencies for Jammu and Kashmir. Critics argued that the redistribution of constituencies increased the political representation of Jammu relative to the Kashmir Valley.
The issue became particularly sensitive because of Jammu and Kashmir’s religious and regional demographic composition.
Changes to domicile rules also generated significant political debate.
Following the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A, new domicile provisions expanded eligibility for domicile status beyond groups previously recognised as permanent residents.
Critics feared that these measures could eventually facilitate demographic changes by enabling more non-local residents to settle, work or acquire rights in the region.
The question of electoral participation also became controversial after proposals emerged to expand voter eligibility to people ordinarily residing in Jammu and Kashmir.
Kashmiri political parties strongly criticised such proposals, arguing that the inclusion of large numbers of non-local voters could weaken the political influence of the existing population.
RELIGIOUS, CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC CONCERNS
Political controversy in Jammu and Kashmir has not remained confined to elections and domicile regulations.
The source article also raises concerns over religious institutions, property, language and cultural identity.
Changes involving the Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Board and actions against organisations such as Jamaat-e-Islami have generated criticism from sections of Kashmiri society.
The status of Urdu has also changed.
For more than a century, Urdu held a central official position in Jammu and Kashmir. In 2020, legislation recognised Kashmiri, Dogri, Hindi, Urdu and English as official languages of the Union Territory.
Critics have viewed such changes within a broader debate about the preservation of Kashmir’s distinct cultural and linguistic identity.
LEGAL STATUS OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST-BIFURCATION
The August 2019 measures produced a major constitutional and administrative transformation.
The former State of Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into:
• Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
• Union Territory of Ladakh
The Indian government regards these measures as constitutional and part of the integration and reorganisation of the territory.
Pakistan disputes the legitimacy of the changes and argues that Jammu and Kashmir remains an internationally recognised dispute whose final status cannot be unilaterally altered.
The United Nations Security Council adopted a number of resolutions concerning the India-Pakistan dispute over Jammu and Kashmir in the years following partition.
This creates two distinct legal and political narratives.
India primarily treats Jammu and Kashmir as an internal constitutional and territorial matter, while Pakistan continues to view the dispute through the framework of international commitments and UN Security Council resolutions.
The constitutional position inside India was further clarified when the Supreme Court of India upheld the measures concerning Article 370 in December 2023.
However, the domestic constitutional ruling did not remove the wider political and diplomatic disagreement between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.
DEMOGRAPHIC AND ELECTORAL CONCERNS
One of the most contested aspects of the post-2019 changes concerns demographics.
Critics argue that new domicile, property and electoral rules could gradually alter the composition of the region and weaken the political influence of its existing population.
The Indian government, on the other hand, has presented many of these measures as reforms intended to extend equal laws, rights and administrative arrangements to Jammu and Kashmir.
This divergence demonstrates the wider political divide surrounding the consequences of the 2019 constitutional changes.
For critics, the changes represent an erosion of Kashmir’s distinct identity and political autonomy.
For supporters, they represent greater constitutional integration with the rest of India.
KASHMIR AND THE INDIA-PAKISTAN DISPUTE
The constitutional changes of 2019 did not end the wider Kashmir dispute.
Pakistan strongly opposed the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, while India maintained that the constitutional changes concerned its internal administration.
As a result, Kashmir continues to remain a major source of disagreement between the two nuclear-armed neighbouring states.
The dispute carries consequences not only for bilateral relations but also for broader regional security.
The competing positions of India and Pakistan, the political aspirations of Kashmiris, security concerns and the historical involvement of the United Nations make Kashmir a complex dispute with legal, political, territorial and humanitarian dimensions.
CONCLUSION
The Kashmir dispute has passed through numerous political and constitutional transformations since the partition of the subcontinent.
The revocation of Articles 370 and 35A in August 2019 marked one of the most significant changes in the modern constitutional history of Jammu and Kashmir.
The subsequent reorganisation of the former state, changes in domicile rules, electoral delimitation and administrative restructuring have substantially transformed the political landscape.
India maintains that these measures have strengthened constitutional integration and governance.
Pakistan and many Kashmiri political voices contest this interpretation and argue that the changes cannot settle the broader dispute or override its international dimensions.
The December 2023 judgment of the Supreme Court of India settled important questions concerning Article 370 within India’s domestic constitutional framework. It did not, however, eliminate the continuing political disagreement between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.
The enduring challenge is therefore larger than the constitutional status of Articles 370 and 35A.
A sustainable resolution requires attention to regional peace, political representation, human rights, competing legal positions and the aspirations of the people directly affected by the dispute.
Until these broader questions are addressed through political and diplomatic means, Kashmir is likely to remain a major unresolved issue in South Asia.
