This post explains “Understanding Article 370 and 35 A. Main points of Article 370 and 35 A. Advantages and disadvantages of Article 370. Importance of Article 370 and 35 A. Understanding Article 370 and 35 A.”

Understanding Article 370 And 35 A

After Jammu and Kashmir, a disputed territory, acceded to the Indian Union under controversial circumstances, the Indian government granted the region a special status in the constitution. This status—and the accompanying provisions—has shaped the region’s political and legal landscape. The key features of this arrangement are discussed in the following sections.

What is Article 370?

Article 370 of Indian Constitution gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir by conferring it with the poArticle 370 of the Indian Constitution granted Jammu and Kashmir a special status by allowing it to:

• Draft its own constitution.
• Have its own state flag.
• Enjoy significant autonomy over its internal administration.

This provision was introduced in 1954 through a constitutional order, thereby establishing a unique legal framework for the region.

Pakistan And The Future Of Kashmir Cause

What is Article 35A?

Article 35A, also enacted in 1954, further defined the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Its main features were:

• Defining who qualifies as a permanent resident of the region.
• Granting these permanent residents special rights, most notably the exclusive right to purchase and sell land and property within the valley.

Indian Motives Behind Revoking Article 370

Revocation of Article 370

On 5th August 2019, Indian President Ram Nath Kovind superseded the 1954 order through a new constitutional order, making all constitutional provisions applicable to Jammu and Kashmir. In the Rajya Sabha (the Upper House of Parliament) on the same day, 125 votes (67 percent) were cast in favor of the revocation, while 61 votes (33 percent) opposed it. The following day in the Lok Sabha (the Lower House), the debate concluded with 370 votes (86 percent) in favor and 70 votes (14 percent) against the measure.

Pakistan’s Stance

Immediately after India revoked Article 370 and its subsidiary provisions, Pakistan’s Foreign Office issued a statement declaring, “As a party to this international dispute, Pakistan will exercise all possible options to counter these illegal steps.”

Implications Of Abrogation Of Article 370

On 7th August, a joint parliamentary session in Pakistan passed a resolution condemning India’s move as an “illegal, unilateral, reckless, and coercive attempt to alter the disputed status of Indian-Occupied Kashmir (IOK) as enshrined in the United Nations Security Council resolutions.” On the same day, Pakistan suspended diplomatic relations with India, recalled its ambassador, and expelled the Indian ambassador.

Subsequently, on 8th August, Railway Minister Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed suspended the services of the Samjhauta Express and Thar Express, while the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting banned all cultural exchanges, including films and dramas. On 9th August, Pakistan formally suspended its trade relations with India. Later, on 20th August, Pakistan announced its intention to take the issue to the International Court of Justice, citing alleged human rights violations.

Indus Water Treaty And Its Main Points

Is The Revocation of Article 370 Legal?

According to the Indian Constitution, Article 370 can only be modified with the concurrence of the state government. Although Jammu and Kashmir has not had a fully functional state government for over a year, this absence does not automatically justify the unilateral decisions made by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. Critics argue that establishing an effective state administration should have preceded any such drastic constitutional changes.

Views of Prominent Indian Figures on the Revocation

Some well-known Indian scholars, writers, and human rights activists have voiced strong opinions regarding the revocation:

• Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen: Despite the ongoing debate regarding the move and the associated detentions of Kashmiris, Sen has expressed that he is “not proud as an Indian.”

• Ramchandra Guha (Historian): Describes the revocation as an “arbitrary misuse of state power.”

• A. G. Norani (Constitutional Scholar): Called it “utterly and palpably unconstitutional.”

Conclusion

The revocation of Article 370—and by extension Article 35A—has not only exposed deep divisions within Indian democracy but has also redirected international attention to the Kashmir issue. The long-term implications on the region’s security, demographic balance, and internal autonomy remain subjects of significant debate and concern.