Article 370: History, Significance, and Implications

Introduction
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution was a provision that conferred special status to the state of
Jammu and Kashmir. Framed in the backdrop of India's independence and partition, it was meant to
reflect the unique historical and political circumstances under which Jammu and Kashmir acceded to
India. Though labeled a "temporary provision," Article 370 shaped the state’s relationship with the
Union of India for over seven decades. Its abrogation on August 5, 2019, by the Indian government
marked a watershed moment in Indian politics, law, and federalism, prompting widespread debate
about nationalism, constitutional integrity, and democratic representation.

Historical Evolution of Article 370

To understand Article 370, one must first understand the backdrop of partition and princely state
integration in 1947. When British India was divided into India and Pakistan, princely states were given
autonomy to join either nation or remain independent. Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state
ruled by a Hindu king, Maharaja Hari Singh, chose not to join either dominion immediately.
However, after an invasion by tribal forces from Pakistan in October 1947, the Maharaja sought
military assistance from India. India agreed to help only after he signed the Instrument of Accession
on October 26, 1947. This document allowed India to exercise authority only in defense, foreign
affairs, and communications. It was under this context that Article 370 was formulated to respect the
special circumstances of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession.
Article 370 was included in the Constitution of India in 1949, drafted by Gopalaswami Ayyangar, a
close aide to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and a key architect of this arrangement. It was intended
to be a transitional provision, pending a final decision based on a plebiscite promised to the people of
the state—something that never took place due to the geopolitical tensions and wars with Pakistan.

Provisions and Powers under Article 370

Article 370 granted Jammu and Kashmir an unprecedented degree of autonomy. Unlike other Indian
states, it had its own constitution and flag. Indian Parliament’s power to legislate for Jammu and
Kashmir was limited to the subjects mentioned in the Instrument of Accession—defense, foreign
affairs, and communications—unless the state government gave its concurrence.
Some key features of Article 370 included:
1. Separate Constitution: Jammu and Kashmir drafted and adopted its own constitution in 1956.
2. Limited Parliamentary Jurisdiction: Laws passed by the Indian Parliament did not
automatically apply to Jammu and Kashmir unless ratified by the state legislature.
3. Dual Citizenship in Practice: Residents of Jammu and Kashmir were Indian citizens but
enjoyed exclusive rights over land ownership and employment in the state.
 4. Presidential Orders: Over time, through numerous Presidential Orders, the reach of Indian
laws was extended to the state, but always with the consent of the state government.
The provision was complex, with Article 35A—inserted via a 1954 Presidential Order—granting the
state legislature the power to define "permanent residents" and their rights. This added another layer of
legal and constitutional separation.

The Debate Around Article 370

Over the years, Article 370 became a subject of intense political and ideological debate. Proponents of
the article viewed it as a necessary assurance to preserve the unique identity and autonomy of Jammu
and Kashmir, especially given the fragile conditions at the time of accession.
Opponents, however, argued that the article was a barrier to full integration with the rest of India and
bred separatism. Many believed that it perpetuated a sense of alienation and prevented effective
governance and development. Critics also pointed to the misuse of the special status by political elites
within the state, who were accused of corruption, dynastic politics, and lack of transparency.

Abrogation of Article 370 in 2019

On August 5, 2019, the Indian government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the
abrogation of Article 370. This was done through a combination of Presidential Order and
Parliamentary Resolution, using a controversial legal interpretation that the "Constituent Assembly"
of Jammu and Kashmir (which had ceased to exist in 1957) would now be replaced by the state’s
legislative assembly—which was under President’s Rule at the time.
The key steps in the process were:
1. A Presidential Order (C.O. 272) was issued to amend Article 367, changing how Article 370
would be interpreted.
2. Using this new interpretation, another Presidential Order (C.O. 273) was issued to abrogate
Article 370 entirely.
3. Parliament passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, bifurcating the state
into two Union Territories: Jammu & Kashmir (with a legislative assembly) and Ladakh
(without one).
The decision was accompanied by a massive security lockdown, curfews, communication blackouts,
and detention of local political leaders—leading to concerns about democratic freedoms and human
rights.

Legal and Political Repercussions

The abrogation has led to several significant legal and political consequences:
1. Central Laws Apply Fully: Laws related to property rights, affirmative action, women’s rights,
and education that were previously not applicable now fully apply to Jammu and Kashmir.
 2. Abolition of Article 35A: The special rights to permanent residents regarding property and
employment were annulled.
3. Federalism and Democracy: Many scholars and opposition leaders criticized the manner of
abrogation, calling it a blow to federal principles and state consent.
4. Pending Supreme Court Verdict: Several petitions challenging the constitutionality of the
abrogation are currently pending in the Supreme Court of India, making it a matter of ongoing
judicial scrutiny.

Economic and Developmental Implications

One of the primary arguments made by the government for revoking Article 370 was that it would
usher in development, investment, and job creation in the region. Supporters of the move argue that:
• Investors, previously barred from owning land, can now bring industries and jobs.
• Development schemes such as those under the Ayushman Bharat health plan and PMAY
(Housing for All) can now be more easily implemented.
• Educational institutions and national infrastructure projects can be more freely planned and
executed.
However, critics argue that the region has not yet seen significant change, and political instability and
security concerns have discouraged private investment.

Security and Geopolitical Dimensions

The removal of Article 370 escalated tensions with Pakistan, which strongly opposed the move and
downgraded diplomatic relations with India. The international community reacted with caution—while
most countries recognized it as India’s internal matter, concerns were raised about human rights and
freedom of expression in the region post-abrogation.
Security-wise, while there have been fewer large-scale protests due to heavy surveillance and military
presence, the region remains tense, and sporadic incidents of violence continue.

Conclusion
Article 370 was not merely a legal provision; it symbolized the complex historical, political, and
emotional relationship between the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian Union. Its abrogation
is a transformative moment, one that has the potential to reshape the region’s identity and its place
within the Indian nation-state. Whether this bold step leads to lasting peace, development, and
integration—or deepens alienation—will depend on the government's ability to ensure inclusive
governance, restore democratic processes, and respect the dignity and rights of the people of the region.
As India continues to evolve, the story of Article 370 remains a powerful reminder of the balance
between unity and diversity in a federal democracy.