370: A never Ending tussle.

The history of Kashmir is complex and deeply tied to the partition of India in 1947. When British India was
divided into India and Pakistan, princely states, like Jammu and Kashmir, were given the choice to join either
nation or remain independent.

Kashmir, led by Maharaja Hari Singh, was a predominantly Muslim region ruled by a Hindu king. Initially, he
wanted to stay independent, avoiding joining either India or Pakistan. However, in October 1947, armed tribal
forces from Pakistan invaded Kashmir, pressuring Hari Singh to make a decision. He sought military assistance
from India, but in return, India asked him to sign the Instrument of Accession, which would make Kashmir a
part of India. He agreed, and the Instrument of Accession was signed on October 26,1947.

To address Kashmir's unique circumstances, India granted it special autonomy under Article three seventy. This
article allowed Jammu and Kashmir to have its own constitution, a separate flag, and control over internal
matters, except defense, communications, and foreign affairs, which remained under the Indian government.
Article three seventy was intended as a temporary provision, acknowledging the region's distinct identity and
aiming to secure its integration with India.

However, the special status under Article three seventy led to long-standing political and regional tensions. It
was seen by many as a barrier to complete integration with India, while others saw it as essential to preserving
Kashmir's autonomy. In August twenty-nineteen, the Indian government abrogated Article three seventy,
revoking the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and reorganizing it into two union territories. This move was
controversial and led to significant debates and reactions across India and internationally.
The abrogation of articles 35A and 370 in August 2019 by the Indian government brought a shift in the
economic, social, and political factors of Jammu and Kashmir. The intention of the Indian government was to
promote integration with the rest of India, stimulate development, and end regional disparities.
But, for many residents of Jammu and Kashmir, this move was a blow to their identity, cultural heritage, and
rights. This article scrabbles about why the people of Jammu and Kashmir desire the reinstatement of these
articles and how their abrogation has affected the residents of Jammu and Kashmir.

(i) Protecting the property of locals.

Before the abrogation of Articles 35A and 370, Article 35A prevents residents from outsiders from purchasing
property and also from settling permanently in Kashmir. This protects the interests of the residents because it
helps the locals maintain the ownership rights and also gives them a source of income from that property. But
the special status is now gone, the property prices rise sharply, and the nonresident individuals and corporations
gradually took control over the local properties by paying higher prices.
This change has raised concerns among some Kashmiris about potential demographic shifts and loss of land
ownership to outsiders. There's also worry about how this could affect the cultural and social fabric of the
region.

(ii) Protecting employment rights

Article 35A restricts government jobs in Jammu and Kashmir to its permanent residents. It is the main source of
livelihood for many in the region, especially in the backward areas because of the scarcity of private sector jobs.
Therefore, with the removal of these provisions, the residents may face increased competition from other states
too. So, this also raises the demand for the reinstatement of these articles.
This could make it more challenging for Kashmiris to secure government and private sector jobs in their own
region. The long-term impact on employment opportunities and economic conditions in Jammu and Kashmir is
still unfolding.

(iii) preventing cultural identity and autonomy

The residents of the state seek the reinstatement of the Articles to prevent the cultural heritage and autonomy
from being snatched away from them and being awarded to the 'Aliens' on the land of Jammu and Kashmir.
This meant that Jammu and Kashmir could create local laws that were best for their demographics, culture, and
tradition.
Jammu an Kashmir has the identity of being heaven on earth thank to the beautiful hilly terrain which intern
poses a signicant challenge for the government in maintaining connectivity with the region which stagnates the
growth and development of several areas.
(iv) strengthening democratic representation and self-governance.

The abrogation of Article 370 has reassessed the status of Jammu and Kashmir from that of a state to a union
territory, reducing local representation. Residents of Jammu and Kashmir think that as a union territory they
have limited legislative power compared to a state. The region now has less power and less control over
administrative affairs than they had before the abrogation. And also, the decision-making powers are in the
hands of the central government, so the residents think that the central government will not understand the
problems faced by the people at ground level.
The locals also argued that the local leaders are more aware of their problems and they can better address the
needs and concerns of the people. Reinstating the special status would empower local governance in the region.

(v) social peace and reducing conflict.

The abrogation of articles 370 and 35A has led to high tension in Jammu and Kashmir, with concerns over
security, protests, and an increased military presence. This has drawn relations between locals and authorities.
For many residents, the return of the special status could help him to restore and foster social harmony within
the region. Locals argue that policies based on mutual respect, regional autonomy, and cultural preservation are
more likely to achieve long-term peace and stability in the region.
The special provisions previously in place allowed for a distinct political process within the region. Restoring
these articles could support more regionally aligned governance, which might lead to reduced tensions and
greater political participation among Kashmiris.
Cultural and economic insecurities can often translate into social unrest. By addressing these insecurities,
reinstating Articles 370 and 35A could help rebuild trust and harmony within the community.

Conclusion

The people of Jammu and Kashmir’s desire for the reinstatement of Articles 35A and 370 is rooted in concerns
for their cultural identity, economic security, political rights, and social harmony. While the abrogation was
intended to spur development and integrate the region more fully into India, it has left many locals feeling
marginalized, economically strained, and politically underrepresented.
Reinstating these articles could serve as a step toward rebuilding trust between the region and the central
government, honoring the region’s unique history, and fostering a stable, prosperous future that respects the
aspirations and rights of its residents.

Author profile:
Saket Agrawal

I am a dedicated law student with a strong interest in constitutional law and its impact on Indian states. Through
my writing, I aim to explore and simplify complex legal principles for readers.