Article 370: What Happened With Kashmir and Why It Matters
Article 370: What Happened With Kashmir and Why It Matters
Kashmir tensions
GETTY IMAGES
India's BJP-led government is hailing its decision to strip the state of Jammu and
Kashmir of autonomy after seven decades, characterising it as the correction of a
"historical blunder". The BBC's Geeta Pandey in Delhi explains why this has happened
and why it's important.
The area was once a princely state called Jammu and Kashmir, but it joined India in 1947
when the sub-continent was divided up at the end of British rule.
India and Pakistan subsequently went to war over it and each came to control different parts
of the territory with a ceasefire line agreed.
There has been violence in the Indian-administered side - the state of Jammu and Kashmir -
for 30 years due to a separatist insurgency against Indian rule.
What's happened now?
In the first few days of August, there were signs of something afoot in Kashmir.
Tens of thousands of additional Indian troops were deployed, a major Hindu pilgrimage was
cancelled, schools and colleges were shut, tourists were ordered to leave, telephone and
internet services were suspended and regional political leaders were placed under house
arrest.
But most of the speculation was that Article 35A of the Indian constitution, which gave some
special privileges to the people of the state, would be scrapped.
The government then stunned everyone by saying it was revoking nearly all of Article 370,
which 35A is part of and which has been the basis of Kashmir's complex relationship with
India for some 70 years.
As a result, Jammu and Kashmir could make its own rules relating to permanent residency,
ownership of property and fundamental rights. It could also bar Indians from outside the state
from purchasing property or settling there.
Modi's Kashmir move will fuel resentment
The constitutional provision has underpinned India's often fraught relationship with Kashmir,
the only Muslim-majority region to join India at partition.
They argued it needed to be scrapped to integrate Kashmir and put it on the same footing as
the rest of India. After returning to power with a massive mandate in the April-May general
elections, the government lost no time in acting on its pledge.
Critics of Monday's move are linking it to the economic slowdown that India is currently facing
- they say it provides a much-needed diversion for the government.
GETTY IMAGES
Many Kashmiris believe that the BJP ultimately wants to change the demographic character
of the Muslim-majority region by allowing non-Kashmiris to buy land there.
The move also fits in with Mr Modi's desire to show that the BJP is tough on Kashmir, and
Pakistan.
What's changed on the ground?
Kashmir will no longer have a separate constitution but will have to abide by the Indian
constitution much like any other state.
All Indian laws will be automatically applicable to Kashmiris, and people from outside the state
will be able to buy property there.
GETTY IMAGES
"I want to tell the people of Jammu and Kashmir what damage Articles 370 and 35A did to the
state," Mr Shah told parliament. "It's because of these sections that democracy was never
fully implemented, corruption increased in the state, that no development could take place."
The government is also moving to break up the state into two smaller, federally administered
territories. One region will combine Muslim-majority Kashmir and Hindu-majority Jammu. The
other is Buddhist-majority Ladakh, which is culturally and historically close to Tibet.
P Chidambaram, a senior leader in the opposition Congress Party described the decision as a
"catastrophic step" and warned in parliament that it could have serious consequences.
"You may think you have scored a victory, but you are wrong and history will prove you to be
wrong. Future generations will realise what a grave mistake this house is making today," he
said.
In June last year, India imposed federal rule after the government of the then chief minister,
Mehbooba Mufti, was reduced to a minority. This meant the federal government only had to
seek the consent of the governor who imposes its rule.
The government says it is well within its rights to bring in the changes and that similar
decisions have been taken by federal governments in the past.
One constitutional expert, Subhash Kashyap, told news agency ANI that the order was
"constitutionally sound" and that "no legal and constitutional fault can be found in it".
However another constitutional expert, AG Noorani, told BBC Hindi it was "an illegal decision,
akin to committing fraud" that could be challenged in the Supreme Court.
Opposition political parties could launch a legal challenge but Kashmir is an emotive issue
with many Indians, and most parties would be wary of opposing the move lest they be
branded anti-India.
Related Topics
India
Neil tests Johnson's Classic police car was 'I was deaf from birth but
knowledge of GATT 24 family's 'place of refuge' now I'm going blind'
Elsewhere on BBC
Recommended by Outbrain
Top Stories
Festival shooting 'domestic terror' probe launched
The FBI opens a terrorism inquiry into an attack just prior to the deadly events in El Paso and
Dayton.
3 hours ago
Features
What happened in Kashmir and why it matters
Lyrics quiz
Have you been getting these songs wrong?
Feeling hot
What happens to your body in extreme heat?
Most Read
Madagascar plane fall: Cambridge student Alana Cutland's 1
body found
Ministers act to end NHS pensions row amid waiting list rise 10
Why you can trust BBC News
On your connected tv
Sport Reel
Worklife Travel
Future Culture
Music TV
Weather Sounds
Copyright © 2019 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our
approach to external linking.