Proof of a Promise Gone in a Puff: A Reaction to the Revocation of Article 370

On the 5th of August, 2019, the Government of India announced its decision to revoke Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Article 370 granted the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir special status and accorded a degree of autonomy for its state government that's not accorded to other Indian states. As per the amended version, Jammu and Kashmir has ceased to become a state and is now a Union Territory of Indian Government with a legislature, like Delhi. Ladakh, which was a part of the state, has been made a new Union Territory but without its legislature. Kashmiri leaders such as Mehbooba Mufti, Omar Abdullah and Ghulam Nabi Azad have accused the government of betraying the trust Kashmiris had reposed on the Indian state. Very rarely do we see such an emotional outpouring over a piece of legislation. Countless legislations are passed every year yet this one has struck a nerve. Why?

In the heat of partition and the Hindu-Muslim riots that claimed the lives of the millions, the accession of a Muslim-majority province into the Indian Union was an action based on the trust that Indians would respect the cultural integrity of Kashmir and wouldn't mistreat and discriminate them on the basis of religion, language and culture, by the rest of the nation. The now-abrogated article was proof of this promise that Indians would abide by their word. Also, the mainstream political parties used Article 370 as evidence of Indian reliability against the more extremist factions who advocated either independence or merger with Pakistan. The Indian Government's actions have vindicated the extremist narrative and have inflicted a great deal of damage to the credibility of the mainstream leadership of Kashmir. While they feel hoodwinked by the Indian Government, they have been left shame-faced in front of their people. Indian  The feeling of betrayal is justified.

The action of the Indian Government has been unilateral. In anticipation of troubles, the Central Government had issued prohibitory orders in the state two days before and placed many of its leaders under house arrest or preventive detention. In the days to follow, the Central Government's move will generate plenty of debates and the line that separates those who support and oppose the government's move will be sharply drawn. Particularly significant is the constitutional debates that this will kick off in the coming days. Since Article 370 is the basis of Kashmir's accession to the Union of India, the abrogation-like amendment of the article seriously upsets the legal basis of Kashmir's inclusion in the Indian Union. Even though the legal lacunae wouldn't negate India's claim over J&K, it would be interesting to observe whether or not we find a new basis to justify India's rights over the people and territory of Jammu and Kashmir. These debates will (and should) question the desirability of revoking Article 370 over retaining it. It also puts the onus on the government (since they are the ones who wish to change the status quo) to convince its critics that revoking the article is more beneficial than retaining it. Or, it has to show that the drawbacks of revocation are less harmful than the ones we suffer already. More than anything else, it has to convince the nation and the people of Jammu and Kashmir that the new move will be advantageous to all sides. For Jammu and Kashmir and India, the next few days will be crucial and almost everything depends on how the principal stakeholders wish to respond.