The global spotlight remains fixed on the Indian Supreme Court’s constitutional bench, headed by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, as it diligently conducts day-to-day hearings on the petition that challenges the Modi government’s controversial decision to revoke the special status of Indian-administered Kashmir. This article delves into the repercussions of Article 370’s revocation and explores how it has raised questions about the true nature of Indian democracy.
The hearings represents a crucial test not just for India’s apex court but also for its democracy as a whole, determining whether the nation genuinely upholds the principles of a representative liberal democracy or is instead governed by the whims and wishes of a select few individuals.
The submission of an affidavit to the highest court by the Modi government, defending their decision to revoke the special status of Indian-administered Kashmir, citing peace, progress, and prosperity as its outcomes, appears to lack merit and reveals a concerning disregard for the ground realities. This stance ignores the sentiments and aspirations of the people of Indian-held Kashmir, who are unwilling to accept the imposition of Indian rule. It is worth mentioning that both Pakistan and China vehemently rejected India’s actions in 2019, with Pakistan asserting its claim over the entire Kashmir region, and China also staking its claim on parts of Ladakh.
It is truly uplifting to witness the Chief Justice’s resolute stance in dismissing the government’s viewpoint, unequivocally asserting that the affidavit submitted by them have “no bearing” to the “constitutional issues which are raised in the petitions.”
On August 5, 2019, India witnessed a momentous and controversial event in its history – the revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. This move, undertaken by the Indian government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), was met with mixed reactions both domestically and internationally. While proponents of the revocation claimed it would lead to development and integration, critics argue that it exposed deep flaws in India’s democratic fabric.
The conflict surrounding Indian-Held Kashmir has been one of the most protracted and contentious issues in South Asia. Kashmir has been a bone of contention between India and Pakistan since their independence in 1947. While both nations claim the region in its entirety, the people of Kashmir have faced a complex struggle for self-determination and human rights.
In 1947, during the partition of British India, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir had the option to accede to either India or Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler at the time, chose to join India, which triggered a war with Pakistan. In the aftermath, the United Nations brokered a ceasefire, and a resolution was passed, demanding a plebiscite to allow the people of Kashmir to decide their future. However, the plebiscite has never taken place, leading to decades of unrest and violence in the region.
In 1950, India granted special autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir through Article 370 of its constitution. This article allowed the state to have its own constitution, flag, and significant legislative powers, except for matters related to defense, communication, foreign affairs, and finance. Over the years, the special status provided some semblance of autonomy to the region and acted as a unique bridge between India and Kashmir.
However, on August 5, 2019, the Indian government, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), abruptly abrogated Article 370, stripping the state of its autonomy and bifurcating it into two union territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. This move was made without the consent of the people of Kashmir, prompting widespread protests and international concern over human rights violations.
The abrogation of Article 370 triggered a severe security crackdown in the region, with mass arrests, communications blackouts, and restrictions on movement imposed on the Kashmiri population. The military presence in the region intensified, leading to alleged instances of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and sexual violence.
The controversial Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) has been heavily criticized for providing the Indian armed forces with impunity, leading to widespread abuses of power. Human rights organizations and international bodies have consistently raised concerns over the lack of accountability and justice for the victims of such abuses.
The abrogation of Article 370 raised several concerns about the essence of Indian democracy and its commitment to upholding constitutional principles. The move was undertaken without any meaningful consultation with the people of Kashmir, undermining the democratic principle of seeking the consent of those affected by such decisions.
Critics argue that a true democracy should respect the aspirations and voices of the people, especially in matters that directly impact their lives and identities. By unilaterally revoking Article 370 and reducing the state to a Union Territory, the Indian government ignored the sentiments and aspirations of the Kashmiri people, leading to widespread protests and resentment.
The revocation of Article 370 and its aftermath raised international attention and scrutiny. Several countries and human rights organizations expressed concern over the potential impact on human rights and the lack of a democratic process. They called for restraint, dialogue, and respect for the rights of the people of Kashmir.
The international community must assume a proactive role in ensuring India’s accountability for its actions, while simultaneously encouraging the Modi government to engage in sincere and constructive dialogues with all relevant stakeholders. By doing so, we can work towards finding a lasting and peaceful resolution to the Kashmir issue.
The changing status of Indian-Held Kashmir and the subsequent clampdown on its people expose the fragility of Indian democracy in addressing the aspirations and grievances of the Kashmiri population. The absence of a plebiscite and the abrogation of Article 370 have only exacerbated the longstanding conflict, leading to a human rights crisis in the region. The international community must take proactive steps to ensure that the Kashmiri people are heard, and their fundamental rights are protected. Only through genuine dialogue and respect for human rights can a lasting solution be found to this complex and sensitive issue.
It is imperative that any decision concerning Kashmir is made with an understanding of the complexities of the region and in consultation with its people. The court should consider the voices of those directly impacted by this decision and the real challenges on the ground, rather than accepting a surface-level narrative that overlooks the nuances and intricacies of the Kashmir issue. A comprehensive and inclusive approach is necessary to address the deep-seated grievances and to pave the way for a lasting and equitable resolution.
