Introduction
On August 5, 2019, the Government of India took a historic step by abrogating Article 370 of the Indian Constitution — a provision that had granted special autonomous status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). The decision has since been regarded as a watershed moment in India’s post-independence constitutional and political journey. As we mark the sixth anniversary of this momentous decision, it is vital for the young generation to understand why Article 370 existed in the first place, what its abrogation signifies for Indian federalism and national integration, and why this step is considered both logical and necessary by many scholars and policymakers.
Why Was Article 370 Created?
To appreciate the abrogation, it is essential first to understand the genesis of Article 370. At the time of India’s independence in 1947, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir — ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh — faced the choice to accede either to India or Pakistan or to remain independent. When Pakistan-backed tribal invaders attacked Kashmir, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession to India on October 26, 1947.
Unlike most princely states, the accession of J&K was accompanied by certain conditions due to the peculiar situation prevailing then — communal unrest, external aggression, and the promise of plebiscite under UN auspices. This led to a special arrangement under which the state retained autonomy over all matters except defense, foreign affairs, and communications.
Article 370 was inserted in Part XXI of the Constitution under “Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions”. It was drafted by Gopalaswami Ayyangar, who argued that due to the peculiar circumstances in Kashmir, a temporary provision was necessary to respect the Instrument of Accession while the final status would be determined after a plebiscite. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, interestingly, had refused to draft it, arguing it was discriminatory.
Thus, Article 370 gave J&K its own Constitution and decision-making powers in most matters. Moreover, it restricted Parliament’s legislative powers over the state without the concurrence of the State’s Constituent Assembly or Government.
The ‘Temporary’ Nature of Article 370
A key argument for abrogation stems from the wording in the Constitution itself — Article 370 was explicitly termed as ‘temporary’. The Constituent Assembly of J&K was meant to decide its permanent relationship with the Union. When that Assembly dissolved itself in 1957 without recommending abrogation or continuation, a legal grey area emerged. Many constitutional experts argued that once the Assembly ceased to exist, the ‘temporary’ provision lost its rationale.
Over decades, successive Presidential Orders diluted J&K’s special status by extending various constitutional provisions, yet the special status continued formally. Critics argued that this quasi-permanent arrangement hindered complete constitutional integration of the region with the Union.
Despite special status, J&K witnessed recurrent separatism and insurgency, especially from the late 1980s. Article 370 was often invoked by separatist leaders to assert the state’s supposed ‘specialness’ and to question its complete integration into India. This provided ideological ammunition for militancy and Pakistan’s proxy war.
Article 35A, inserted through a Presidential Order under Article 370, empowered the state to define ‘permanent residents’ and provide them with special rights and privileges, restricting land ownership and jobs. This limited private investment, hindered industrialization, and kept the state’s economy dependent on heavy central subsidies. Socially, the provision discriminated against women (e.g., women who married outside the state lost property rights) and marginalized communities like Valmikis and West Pakistan refugees.
The Logic Behind Abrogation: Strengthening National Integration
The abrogation aimed to complete the unfinished project of national integration initiated in 1947. Proponents argue that a single Constitution, flag, and citizenship for all Indians is a core tenet of India’s unity. Article 370 was seen as an anomaly that contradicted this principle.
With Article 370 and Article 35A, there were dual sets of rights — J&K citizens had privileges other Indians did not. This violated the idea of ‘One Nation, One Constitution’. By repealing these provisions, the Government sought to extend all Fundamental Rights fully and uniformly to the people of J&K.
Without the legal constraints imposed by special status, the Government argued that national laws relating to reservation, RTI, anti-corruption, and minority rights could be implemented more effectively. This could unlock investment, generate employment, and empower marginalized sections.
Another key justification was national security. Article 370 was seen by many as a psychological barrier that insurgents exploited to fuel secessionist sentiments. By removing it, the state could be better integrated administratively and militarily, countering terrorism and infiltration more robustly.
The Abrogation Process: Legal and Political Dimensions
On August 5, 2019, the President of India issued a Constitutional Order under Article 370(1) applying all provisions of the Indian Constitution to J&K. Simultaneously, the Parliament passed a resolution recommending that Article 370 cease to operate, invoking Article 370(3). Further, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, bifurcated the state into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir (with a legislature) and Ladakh (without a legislature).
Critics argue that the absence of a State Government at the time (as President’s Rule was in force) makes the abrogation contentious. The Government counters that the Governor, as the representative of the State Government under President’s Rule, was competent to give consent.
Post-Abrogation Developments
Six years on, the region has seen several changes. Some positive indicators include the extension of Central laws, investments in infrastructure and tourism, elections to District Development Councils, and greater administrative integration.
However, challenges remain — political discontent persists among sections of the population, internet curbs and security lockdowns were imposed for extended periods, and mainstream regional parties continue to demand restoration of statehood and special status.
For youngsters, it is essential to track these developments critically and objectively. The real test of the abrogation lies in how successfully it can transform the region socio-economically and politically.
Conclusion
The abrogation of Article 370 is not merely an event in India’s constitutional history but a continuing process that will shape the future of Jammu and Kashmir and India’s federal fabric. As future policymakers, academics, and informed citizens, young people must study it not as an isolated act but in the context of India’s long struggle for integration, unity, and equitable development.
The lessons from this decision extend beyond Kashmir — they illuminate how democracies negotiate diversity, manage regional aspirations, and balance local identities with national unity.
As we commemorate six years since this historic step, the youth must engage with it not as passive observers but as critical thinkers. Whether one supports or opposes the decision, understanding its constitutional, legal, social, and political dimensions is vital. In doing so, young Indians will be better equipped to contribute to the discourse on how to build an India that is truly united, inclusive, and just.