Introduction: In August 2019, the Indian Parliament made a landmark decision by scrapping Article 370 and Article 35A, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). This move came alongside the introduction of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, which was passed on August 5, 2019. This legislation marked a major political shift, dividing the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir into two separate Union Territories—Jammu & Kashmir (with a legislative assembly) and Ladakh (without a legislative assembly). While India has seen the formation of new states over the years, this was the first time a state’s status was downgraded to that of a Union Territory, creating far-reaching implications for the region.
This bold step fulfilled a long-standing item in the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) manifesto, yet the sudden nature of the decision sent shockwaves across political circles. While it garnered strong parliamentary support, the house arrest of top political leaders in Kashmir and the subsequent shutdown of communication networks faced significant criticism, both domestically and internationally.
Let’s take a closer look at the J&K Reorganisation Act, how it unfolded, and what its potential implications are for the people of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh.
Federalism in India: Balancing Center and States
India’s political framework is defined by a federal structure, with states serving as key building blocks of governance. Each state has its own elected legislative assembly and government, which hold power to legislate on matters such as law and order, taxation, and social administration. This system is outlined in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which divides powers into three distinct lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List.
The notion of centralization versus state autonomy has been a longstanding debate. In the formative years of India’s independence, there were those who argued for more independent provincial legislatures, warning that an overly centralized state could become authoritarian. However, post-partition, concerns over national integrity led to the adoption of a system where the central government held significant power over the states.
Union Territories: Centralized Governance
Union Territories (UTs) differ from states in that they are governed directly by the central government, through administrators or Lieutenant Governors appointed by the President of India. While most states enjoy considerable legislative independence, UTs are often more closely aligned with the central government’s policies. This creates a unique dynamic, especially in the case of Delhi, which has powers similar to a state, and Puducherry, which has its own legislative assembly but is still governed by an appointed Lieutenant Governor.
The creation of the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh follows this structure, with varying levels of autonomy and central oversight. Jammu & Kashmir retains a legislative assembly, but many critical functions, such as policing and public order, now fall under the direct control of the central government.
The Special Case of Jammu & Kashmir
For decades, Jammu and Kashmir enjoyed a special status within India under Article 370, which provided the region with autonomy over most internal matters. This article was a recognition of the unique circumstances surrounding J&K’s accession to India in 1947, a period marked by intense uncertainty and concerns about identity and security among the Kashmiri population.
However, successive central governments steadily diluted Article 370 over the years. Through a series of presidential orders, more than 90 out of the 97 subjects on the Union List were gradually extended to Jammu and Kashmir. Thus, by the time the J&K Reorganisation Bill was passed, the region had already lost much of the autonomy originally granted under Article 370.
What the J&K Reorganisation Act Entails
Under the new law, the state of Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated. Ladakh became a Union Territory without a legislative assembly, while Jammu & Kashmir became a Union Territory with an assembly but with severely curtailed powers. The Act also applied all central laws to the region, while repealing a large number of state laws that previously applied only to J&K.
One of the most significant changes brought by this reorganisation is that Jammu & Kashmir no longer has control over its police force and key administrative functions. It is now financially dependent on the central government, which significantly reduces its fiscal autonomy. The legislative assembly retains the power to pass laws, but only on issues listed in the State and Concurrent Lists of the Constitution—matters like law and order, trade, and public administration are outside its purview.
For Ladakh, which had long sought recognition and development, the new Union Territory status is seen as an opportunity for growth. The region’s new administrative structure is expected to bring development funds and jobs to Ladakh, which has historically been neglected in the larger political discourse surrounding J&K.
A Move Toward Equality?
One of the key arguments for the abrogation of Article 370 was to bring Jammu and Kashmir in line with the rest of the country in terms of civil rights and equality. Under its special status, J&K was exempt from several progressive laws that applied elsewhere in India. With the changes, national laws such as the 2005 amendments to the Hindu Succession Act—which granted equal inheritance rights to women—now apply in Jammu and Kashmir. Reservations for Scheduled Castes and Tribes will also now be implemented in the region, and restrictions on property transfers have been lifted.
In addition, central government scholarships and welfare schemes, previously not extended to J&K, will now be available to its residents. The hope is that these measures will lead to tangible improvements in people’s lives, while also underscoring the government’s commitment to the region’s development.
International Response and Human Rights Concerns
Initially, much of the international community, aside from Pakistan and China, viewed the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir as an internal matter for India. However, as the months passed, criticism began to mount over the extended internet shutdown and restrictions on movement, which deeply affected the daily lives of Kashmiris. The internet blackout, one of the longest in history, was particularly damaging to businesses, education, and healthcare.
Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, condemned the restrictions, calling for the release of political leaders and the restoration of communication networks. Even the United Nations Security Council held a closed-door session on the matter, a rare occurrence that highlighted global concern over the situation.
The Path Ahead
The government’s decision to reorganise Jammu and Kashmir has been challenged in India’s Supreme Court on the grounds that it violates the principles of federalism and Article 3 of the Constitution. Critics argue that the central government should have sought greater input from local political leaders and residents before making such a consequential decision.
Moving forward, the central government must focus on rebuilding trust with the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Instead of relying solely on a hard-line approach, the government needs to emphasize development and economic progress through tangible initiatives, such as scholarships, infrastructure projects, and job creation.
A clear path for restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, combined with efforts to address the region’s long-standing concerns, would go a long way in fostering confidence and stability, both within the region and internationally.
References:
- Constitution of India, Article 370 and Union Territory Administration, Seventh Amendment Act, 1956.
- Reports on the Abrogation of Article 370 by various national and international media outlets.
- United Nations Security Council closed session on Jammu & Kashmir, August 2019.
- Amnesty International’s reports on human rights in Kashmir, 2020.
Understanding the Impact of the J&K Reorganisation Act: Implications for Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh