Ahmad Ayaz
On August 5, 2019, the Government of India, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), rendered Article 370 inoperative through a series of Presidential Orders and a declaration under Article 370(3), thereby ending the special constitutional status of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and extending all provisions of the Constitution of India to the region. Simultaneously, Article 35A—which empowered the Jammu and Kashmir Legislature to define “permanent residents” and confer upon them special rights relating to land ownership, government employment, scholarships, and other benefits—also ceased to operate. The erstwhile State was subsequently reorganised into the two Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
Seven years later, these constitutional changes remain among the most consequential and debated developments in India’s constitutional history. While the Union Government maintains that the decision has strengthened national integration, improved governance, accelerated development, and curtailed separatism, demands for the restoration of Article 370, Article 35A, and full statehood continue to resonate across sections of society in Jammu and Kashmir. The persistence of protests and political campaigns indicates that, for many, the issue extends beyond constitutional law and remains deeply connected to identity, federalism, democratic representation, and the region’s historical relationship with the Union of India.
Understanding Article 370 and Article 35A
Article 370 was incorporated into the Constitution of India as a temporary provision governing the constitutional relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Union of India. It accorded the State a distinct constitutional position under which Parliament could legislate on specified subjects, while the extension of many other constitutional provisions required the concurrence of the State Government through Presidential Orders.
Article 35A, introduced through the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, empowered the Jammu and Kashmir Legislature to define “permanent residents” and confer upon them special rights relating to government employment, the acquisition of immovable property, scholarships, and other welfare benefits. For many residents, these provisions served as constitutional safeguards for land, employment, and the preservation of the region’s distinct demographic and cultural identity.
The Government’s Rationale
The Union Government argued that Article 370 had become an impediment to the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India. It maintained that the special constitutional arrangement had created legal and administrative complexities, restricted investment, and prevented the full application of several central laws intended to benefit citizens.
According to the Government, the constitutional changes would ensure equal rights for all citizens, improve governance, strengthen transparency and accountability, facilitate economic growth, encourage investment, and accelerate infrastructure development, tourism, education, and employment. The reorganisation into Union Territories was presented as an administrative measure aimed at improving governance and public service delivery.
Why the Protests Continue
Despite these stated objectives, the constitutional changes continue to evoke strong political and public reactions. Several political parties, civil society organisations, and many citizens argue that the manner in which Article 370 was rendered inoperative remains constitutionally and politically contentious.
For many people in Jammu and Kashmir, Article 370 represented more than a constitutional provision. It symbolised the constitutional understanding under which the State acceded to the Union of India and reflected a unique federal relationship. Consequently, its abrogation is viewed by many as fundamentally altering that relationship without the consent of the people of the region.
The removal of Article 35A also remains a major point of concern. Many fear that the disappearance of constitutional protections relating to land ownership and government employment could eventually affect the demographic character of the region and reduce opportunities for local residents. Others argue that these concerns are overstated and that existing legal safeguards and economic realities will continue to regulate such issues.
Another major concern relates to political representation. The conversion of a full-fledged State into a Union Territory is regarded by many as a dilution of democratic authority. Although the Union Government has repeatedly assured that statehood will be restored, Jammu and Kashmir has yet to regain that status. The continued delay remains a central political issue cutting across party lines.
Identity and Public Sentiment
Constitutional provisions often carry significance beyond their legal text. For many residents, Article 370 came to symbolise recognition of Jammu and Kashmir’s unique constitutional identity and historical position within the Indian Union.
As a result, the continuing protests are not merely about restoring constitutional provisions. They also reflect concerns relating to identity, dignity, democratic participation, and the desire for greater involvement in decisions affecting the region’s future.
At the same time, many people support the constitutional changes, believing they have enhanced national integration, expanded economic opportunities, and reduced political uncertainty. This diversity of opinion demonstrates that public sentiment in Jammu and Kashmir is neither uniform nor monolithic.
Development and Governance
Supporters of the 2019 decision point to increased infrastructure investment, expansion of road and railway connectivity, improved tourism, and the implementation of centrally sponsored schemes as evidence that the constitutional changes have yielded tangible developmental gains.
Critics, however, contend that economic development alone cannot substitute for political empowerment. They argue that infrastructure projects and administrative reforms, while important, cannot replace democratic representation, constitutional safeguards, and public trust.
This reflects two distinct perspectives on the post-2019 period: one centred on governance, development, and integration, and the other on constitutional autonomy, federalism, and democratic aspirations.
The Role of Political Parties
Regional political parties continue to advocate the restoration of Article 370, Article 35A, and statehood through constitutional and democratic means. They maintain that these provisions were essential for protecting the political, economic, and cultural interests of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
National political parties remain divided. While some support restoration through constitutional and legislative processes, others regard the changes of August 2019 as final and irreversible. Consequently, Article 370 continues to remain a central issue in electoral politics, parliamentary debates, and public discourse.
Legal and Constitutional Questions
The constitutional changes of August 2019 were challenged before the Supreme Court of India on several grounds, including the interpretation of Article 370, the scope of Presidential powers, and the constitutional validity of the process adopted to render the provision inoperative. In December 2023, a Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of the Presidential Orders and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act while observing that statehood should be restored to Jammu and Kashmir at the earliest. Although the legal position now stands settled, statehood has yet to be restored, ensuring that the political debate remains alive.
However, the 2023 verdict is not the only significant judicial pronouncement concerning Article 370. The constitutional evolution of the provision has been shaped by several landmark Supreme Court judgments over the decades. Among the most significant is Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1968), in which a Constitution Bench held that Article 370 did not automatically cease to operate after the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly. The Court observed that, in the absence of a recommendation by the Constituent Assembly under Article 370(3), the provision continued to remain operative, and the President retained the authority to issue Constitutional Orders extending provisions of the Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir from time to time.
Other important decisions, including Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1959) and Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1972), also examined different dimensions of the constitutional relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Union of India. Together, these judgments formed the principal judicial framework governing the interpretation of Article 370 before 2019.
A central legal issue was the interpretation of the word “temporary” in the heading of Article 370. While one school of thought argued that its temporary nature permitted its eventual abrogation by the Union, another maintained that, after the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly without recommending its repeal, the provision had effectively acquired a permanent character. This constitutional question remained at the heart of the legal challenge to the 2019 decision.
Although the Constitution Bench considered these earlier precedents before arriving at its conclusions, the judgment did not end the political debate. The distinction between the legal position settled by the Court and the continuing political demand for restoration remains central to understanding the issue seven years after the abrogation.
The Road Ahead
Seven years after the constitutional changes, Jammu and Kashmir stands at a critical juncture. Improved infrastructure, growing tourism, and increased public investment coexist with continuing political demands, constitutional debates, and questions regarding democratic representation and federalism.
The persistence of protests also reflects the fact that, for many stakeholders, the underlying political questions remain unresolved. While the constitutional challenge has been adjudicated, political demands for the restoration of Article 370, Article 35A, and statehood continue to be pursued through democratic means. The absence of political consensus has ensured that the issue remains an active part of public discourse rather than merely a chapter of constitutional history.
Many believe that a fully empowered elected government is essential for strengthening democratic institutions and rebuilding public confidence. Others emphasise that long-term peace and stability require sustained economic growth, employment generation, transparent governance, and constructive political engagement.
Conclusion
The continuing protests over Article 370 demonstrate that constitutional questions often transcend legal interpretation. They involve history, identity, democratic participation, federal principles, and competing visions of governance.
Seven years after its abrogation, the debate surrounding Article 370 has evolved but has not disappeared. While the constitutional position has been judicially settled, the political conversation remains active. Addressing public aspirations, restoring democratic institutions, ensuring accountable governance, and fostering inclusive dialogue will remain essential to achieving lasting peace and stability in Jammu and Kashmir.
Whether viewed as a landmark step towards national integration or as the loss of a distinctive constitutional arrangement, the legacy of Article 370 continues to shape political discourse in Jammu and Kashmir. The challenge before policymakers, political parties, civil society, and citizens is to engage with these differing perspectives democratically while striving for a future founded on constitutional values, justice, development, and public trust.
The author is a columnist and public affairs commentator. He can be reached at: ahmadayaz08@gmail.comAhmad Ayaz
On August 5, 2019, the Government of India, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), rendered Article 370 inoperative through a series of Presidential Orders and a declaration under Article 370(3), thereby ending the special constitutional status of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and extending all provisions of the Constitution of India to the region. Simultaneously, Article 35A—which empowered the Jammu and Kashmir Legislature to define “permanent residents” and confer upon them special rights relating to land ownership, government employment, scholarships, and other benefits—also ceased to operate. The erstwhile State was subsequently reorganised into the two Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
Seven years later, these constitutional changes remain among the most consequential and debated developments in India’s constitutional history. While the Union Government maintains that the decision has strengthened national integration, improved governance, accelerated development, and curtailed separatism, demands for the restoration of Article 370, Article 35A, and full statehood continue to resonate across sections of society in Jammu and Kashmir. The persistence of protests and political campaigns indicates that, for many, the issue extends beyond constitutional law and remains deeply connected to identity, federalism, democratic representation, and the region’s historical relationship with the Union of India.
Understanding Article 370 and Article 35A
Article 370 was incorporated into the Constitution of India as a temporary provision governing the constitutional relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Union of India. It accorded the State a distinct constitutional position under which Parliament could legislate on specified subjects, while the extension of many other constitutional provisions required the concurrence of the State Government through Presidential Orders.
Article 35A, introduced through the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, empowered the Jammu and Kashmir Legislature to define “permanent residents” and confer upon them special rights relating to government employment, the acquisition of immovable property, scholarships, and other welfare benefits. For many residents, these provisions served as constitutional safeguards for land, employment, and the preservation of the region’s distinct demographic and cultural identity.
The Government’s Rationale
The Union Government argued that Article 370 had become an impediment to the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India. It maintained that the special constitutional arrangement had created legal and administrative complexities, restricted investment, and prevented the full application of several central laws intended to benefit citizens.
According to the Government, the constitutional changes would ensure equal rights for all citizens, improve governance, strengthen transparency and accountability, facilitate economic growth, encourage investment, and accelerate infrastructure development, tourism, education, and employment. The reorganisation into Union Territories was presented as an administrative measure aimed at improving governance and public service delivery.
Why the Protests Continue
Despite these stated objectives, the constitutional changes continue to evoke strong political and public reactions. Several political parties, civil society organisations, and many citizens argue that the manner in which Article 370 was rendered inoperative remains constitutionally and politically contentious.
For many people in Jammu and Kashmir, Article 370 represented more than a constitutional provision. It symbolised the constitutional understanding under which the State acceded to the Union of India and reflected a unique federal relationship. Consequently, its abrogation is viewed by many as fundamentally altering that relationship without the consent of the people of the region.
The removal of Article 35A also remains a major point of concern. Many fear that the disappearance of constitutional protections relating to land ownership and government employment could eventually affect the demographic character of the region and reduce opportunities for local residents. Others argue that these concerns are overstated and that existing legal safeguards and economic realities will continue to regulate such issues.
Another major concern relates to political representation. The conversion of a full-fledged State into a Union Territory is regarded by many as a dilution of democratic authority. Although the Union Government has repeatedly assured that statehood will be restored, Jammu and Kashmir has yet to regain that status. The continued delay remains a central political issue cutting across party lines.
Identity and Public Sentiment
Constitutional provisions often carry significance beyond their legal text. For many residents, Article 370 came to symbolise recognition of Jammu and Kashmir’s unique constitutional identity and historical position within the Indian Union.
As a result, the continuing protests are not merely about restoring constitutional provisions. They also reflect concerns relating to identity, dignity, democratic participation, and the desire for greater involvement in decisions affecting the region’s future.
At the same time, many people support the constitutional changes, believing they have enhanced national integration, expanded economic opportunities, and reduced political uncertainty. This diversity of opinion demonstrates that public sentiment in Jammu and Kashmir is neither uniform nor monolithic.
Development and Governance
Supporters of the 2019 decision point to increased infrastructure investment, expansion of road and railway connectivity, improved tourism, and the implementation of centrally sponsored schemes as evidence that the constitutional changes have yielded tangible developmental gains.
Critics, however, contend that economic development alone cannot substitute for political empowerment. They argue that infrastructure projects and administrative reforms, while important, cannot replace democratic representation, constitutional safeguards, and public trust.
This reflects two distinct perspectives on the post-2019 period: one centred on governance, development, and integration, and the other on constitutional autonomy, federalism, and democratic aspirations.
The Role of Political Parties
Regional political parties continue to advocate the restoration of Article 370, Article 35A, and statehood through constitutional and democratic means. They maintain that these provisions were essential for protecting the political, economic, and cultural interests of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
National political parties remain divided. While some support restoration through constitutional and legislative processes, others regard the changes of August 2019 as final and irreversible. Consequently, Article 370 continues to remain a central issue in electoral politics, parliamentary debates, and public discourse.
Legal and Constitutional Questions
The constitutional changes of August 2019 were challenged before the Supreme Court of India on several grounds, including the interpretation of Article 370, the scope of Presidential powers, and the constitutional validity of the process adopted to render the provision inoperative. In December 2023, a Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of the Presidential Orders and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act while observing that statehood should be restored to Jammu and Kashmir at the earliest. Although the legal position now stands settled, statehood has yet to be restored, ensuring that the political debate remains alive.
However, the 2023 verdict is not the only significant judicial pronouncement concerning Article 370. The constitutional evolution of the provision has been shaped by several landmark Supreme Court judgments over the decades. Among the most significant is Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1968), in which a Constitution Bench held that Article 370 did not automatically cease to operate after the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly. The Court observed that, in the absence of a recommendation by the Constituent Assembly under Article 370(3), the provision continued to remain operative, and the President retained the authority to issue Constitutional Orders extending provisions of the Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir from time to time.
Other important decisions, including Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1959) and Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1972), also examined different dimensions of the constitutional relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Union of India. Together, these judgments formed the principal judicial framework governing the interpretation of Article 370 before 2019.
A central legal issue was the interpretation of the word “temporary” in the heading of Article 370. While one school of thought argued that its temporary nature permitted its eventual abrogation by the Union, another maintained that, after the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly without recommending its repeal, the provision had effectively acquired a permanent character. This constitutional question remained at the heart of the legal challenge to the 2019 decision.
Although the Constitution Bench considered these earlier precedents before arriving at its conclusions, the judgment did not end the political debate. The distinction between the legal position settled by the Court and the continuing political demand for restoration remains central to understanding the issue seven years after the abrogation.
The Road Ahead
Seven years after the constitutional changes, Jammu and Kashmir stands at a critical juncture. Improved infrastructure, growing tourism, and increased public investment coexist with continuing political demands, constitutional debates, and questions regarding democratic representation and federalism.
The persistence of protests also reflects the fact that, for many stakeholders, the underlying political questions remain unresolved. While the constitutional challenge has been adjudicated, political demands for the restoration of Article 370, Article 35A, and statehood continue to be pursued through democratic means. The absence of political consensus has ensured that the issue remains an active part of public discourse rather than merely a chapter of constitutional history.
Many believe that a fully empowered elected government is essential for strengthening democratic institutions and rebuilding public confidence. Others emphasise that long-term peace and stability require sustained economic growth, employment generation, transparent governance, and constructive political engagement.
Conclusion
The continuing protests over Article 370 demonstrate that constitutional questions often transcend legal interpretation. They involve history, identity, democratic participation, federal principles, and competing visions of governance.
Seven years after its abrogation, the debate surrounding Article 370 has evolved but has not disappeared. While the constitutional position has been judicially settled, the political conversation remains active. Addressing public aspirations, restoring democratic institutions, ensuring accountable governance, and fostering inclusive dialogue will remain essential to achieving lasting peace and stability in Jammu and Kashmir.
Whether viewed as a landmark step towards national integration or as the loss of a distinctive constitutional arrangement, the legacy of Article 370 continues to shape political discourse in Jammu and Kashmir. The challenge before policymakers, political parties, civil society, and citizens is to engage with these differing perspectives democratically while striving for a future founded on constitutional values, justice, development, and public trust.
The author is a columnist and public affairs commentator. He can be reached at: ahmadayaz08@gmail.com
