Jammu and Kashmir in the Aftermath of August 2019
The abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has been on the agenda of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for many decades.
Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) was the only state that negotiated its accession to the Union of India in 1947. The instrument of accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh on October 26, 1947 surrendered only four areas –defense, communications, foreign affairs, and finance–, giving the union government the power to decide on these matters, while the remaining areas were retained by the state.
When the Indian constitution was being framed, a temporary special provision under Article 370 was included to protect the autonomy, rights, interests, and identity of J&K. The state was also allowed to have its own separate constitution and flag, and many laws passed by the Indian parliament were not directly applicable to J&K unless the same was passed by its own legislature. Likewise, Article 35A, added to the Indian constitution through a presidential order in 1954, gave exclusive rights to the legislature of J&K to define the permanent citizens of the state and provide them with special rights and privileges. The article essentially reserved the rights over land, property, and jobs for the residents of J&K and debarred the citizens of other states from the same. However, the autonomy of the state was constantly emptied by successive central governments, culminating in the de-operationalization of Articles 370 and 35A in 2019.
On August 5, 2019, the Home Minister of India announced in parliament that the central government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had abrogated Article 370 and repealed Article 35A through a presidential order. Concurrently, the Home Minister introduced the J&K Reorganization Bill 2019 to change the status of the state and divide it into two new union territories (UTs), i.e. the UT of Jammu and Kashmir and the UT of Ladakh. The bill was passed by the Indian parliament on August 6, 2019. While all this was being done, all of J&K was subjected to massive curfew and clampdown. The leadership across the political spectrum in J&K, including former chief ministers, were arrested, mobile and internet connectivity was entirely shut down, and a complete communication “gag” was imposed in the state. These measures, despite criticism, were taken to prevent any outbreak of violence.
Available in:
Themes and regions
Share
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Jammu and Kashmir in the Aftermath of August 2019
Center for Asian Studies
Asia is a nerve center for multiple global economic, political and security challenges. The Center for Asian Studies provides documented expertise and a platform for discussion on Asian issues to accompany decision makers and explain and contextualize developments in the region for the sake of a larger public dialogue.
The Center's research is organized along two major axes: relations between Asia's major powers and the rest of the world; and internal economic and social dynamics of Asian countries. The Center's research focuses primarily on China, Japan, India, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, but also covers Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Pacific Islands.
The Centre for Asian Studies maintains close institutional links with counterpart research institutes in Europe and Asia, and its researchers regularly carry out fieldwork in the region.
The Center organizes closed-door roundtables, expert-level seminars and a number of public events, including an Annual Conference, that welcome experts from Asia, Europe and the United States. The work of Center’s researchers, as well as that of their partners, is regularly published in the Center’s electronic journal Asie.Visions.
Pakistan and the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Transformation in Pakistan’s Approach After the War in Gaza
Pakistan has long combined vocal support for the Palestinian cause with covert engagement with Israel. Since the war in Gaza, this balance has become untenable: public opinion is united against Israel, joining Trump’s Board of Peace has drawn rare cross-party criticism, and new regional alignments put normalization out of reach.
The Oceania Factor in France’s Evolving Indo-Pacific Strategy
This paper examines the two-way relationship between France’s Indo-Pacific strategy and developments in Oceania. Oceania was not a priority in the initial years of France’s Indo-Pacific strategy, as the region was largely treated as secondary to major strategic hotspots and key partnerships, while overseas territories were primarily handled as domestic issues and recipients of a top-down strategy.
France’s View: From Diplomacy to Public-Private Action
France has emerged as the EU’s IMEC forerunner, combining port infrastructure, diplomatic alliances and public-private cooperation. With Marseille Fos at its core, the country brings a strategic hub for logistics, energy and digital connectivity to the corridor.
Trump II, the Crisis of the Rules-Based Order and Europe’s Indo-Pacific Strategy
This article examines the implications of Trump II for Europe’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific. The piece contends that Trump II is accelerating the erosion of the rules-based order and undermining the relevance of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) concept, while forcing Europe to refocus on its own continental security amid US retrenchment. Paradoxically, these very constraints create conditions for a more autonomous, pragmatic, and explicitly interest-driven European engagement in the Indo-Pacific, rather than outright withdrawal.