Indian Governance of Jammu and Kashmir Mirrors 70-Year Long History

The repeal of Articles 35A and 370 of India’s constitution has raised political unrest in the region of Jammu and Kashmir, where Indigenous Kashmiris fear settler colonialism and a lack of autonomy. 

Until August of 2019, when the Indian government challenged the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir, the Kashmiri people lived semi-autonomously in the highly-contested region of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. It was only when the government repealed Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution – which relate to the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir – that Kashmiris feared their chance at independence was under threat.

“This is an anti-colonial struggle – the colonizers being the Indian government – and it’s important to keep this frame in mind when understanding what’s happening in the region,” writes Assistant Professor of South Asian history at Lafayette College, Hafsa Kanjwal.

Until August 2019, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi repealed these laws, Article 35A of the constitution gave Kashmiri people the right to define the state’s “permanent” residents and what distinguishes them. Moreover, Article 370 of the Indian Constitution gave Jammu and Kashmir autonomous privileges, such as the ability to formulate laws that apply to the state’s permanent residents.

With these laws having been repealed, “Indians can now buy land in Kashmir. The fear is that, because these changes were made, Indians from India – mostly Hindus – can come into Kashmir and change the demographics of the region from a Muslim majority population to an increasingly Hindu population,” Kanjwal explained. “And so, that has significant repercussions. This is of course linked to Prime Minister Modi’s idea that Kashmir, as well as India, is part of the land that belongs to Hindus.”

The abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A naturally engendered mass protests and upheaval in Kashmir. Nearly 4,000 people were arrested in the Kashmir region; approximately 200 of which were local Kashmiri politicians. Activists, such as Sandeep Pandey, who, according to the Indian government, took part in an “informal fact-finding mission,” were barred from leaving the airport in Srinagar.

Kashmiri protestors took to the streets, chanting pro-Pakistan slogans and demanded an end to what they perceived as an “Indian occupation of their territory.” In an attempt to suppress this outrage, the Indian government declared a public curfew in Kashmir and deployed tens of thousands of more military and security forces in the region.

During this time, the Indian government also imposed restrictions on internet access for Kashmiris. After nearly six months of being cut off from the world, in late January of 2020, Jammu and Kashmir regained access to a list of government-approved sites on 2G Internet. In early March, broadband was restored and local politicians were released from jail. It was only later that month, when the first case of COVID-19 was detected in Kashmir, that the region was under lockdown once again, with new rules against movement and social gatherings.

According to the UN Human Rights Watch, this past June, the Indian government announced a new media policy in Jammu and Kashmir that “empowers the authorities to decide what is ‘fake news, plagiarism and unethical or anti-national activities’ and to take punitive action against media outlets, journalists, and editors.” The provisions behind these policies could significantly restrict and penalize legally protected speech.

Later, in 1947, the first war over Jammu and Kashmir erupted between India and Pakistan. The United Nations intervened, declared a ceasefire, and announced that a plebiscite should be held to decide what country Jammu and Kashmir belonged to. Neither India nor Pakistan were willing to reach an agreement, therefore, the plebiscite was never held.

“Many Kashmiris highlight the fact that the [proposed] UN plebiscite d[id] not include the option for Jammu and Kashmir to remain its own nation-state independent from both India and Pakistan, which, at the time, and at various moments since, may in fact be the choice of a majority of Kashmiris,” writes Dean Accardi, Assistant Professor of History at Connecticut College.

“India claims its unilateral abrogation of Article 370 and dissolution of Kashmir’s state government will in fact aid in the economic development in Jammu and Kashmir,” argues Accardi. “However, according to renowned economist Jean Dreze, Jammu and Kashmir, before 2019, had some of the lowest poverty rates in India, significantly lower than current Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s own home state of Gujarat (for which he was Chief Minister from 2001-2014) which is often celebrated in popular media as a model for successful development.”

Due to the consistent lockdowns and communication blockades, 15% of Jammu and Kashmir’s population is unemployed, “which has pushed a huge portion of the population towards poverty, “During lockdowns, people resorted to savings or borrowings which has made households extremely indebted. This is impacting the socio-economy of the region very negatively. Some of the visible impacts can be seen in rising drug abuse among youth, suicides, and [a] rising demand for food packets,” writes a Kashmiri Economic Analyst who requested to be identified by the pseudonym, Muhammad Ali.

In the past few months, India has capitalized on imports of apples from Iran, an economic decision that put Kashmiris in a state of unease: to Kashmiris, this decision is perceived as the Indian government’s tactic for potentially impoverishing Jammu and Kashmir.

“The region, despite having enormous export and tourism potential, is trapped in political uncertainty. This has killed the investment appetite in the region. Moreover, the frequency in government imposed curfews and communication and internet blockade limits the growth of new age businesses and commerce. The conflict which led to corruption also ensured that public infrastructure remains backward,” Ali wrote.

And though economic stability is one issue, Kanjwal clarified, “there are human rights violations, a lack of political representation, an immense war on civil society, and this place [Jammu and Kashmir] is extremely volatile.”

“Kashmiris haven’t been able to exercise their right to govern themselves and to have self-determination,” Kanjwal explained. “India’s occupation has caused immense suffering in terms of human rights violations — a number of people have been killed, tortured, and so on. Violence existed in Kashmiri society for a long time because of its rulers who were extremely negligent towards the local population and sought to dominate them. Under Indian governance, it has continued, and India’s rule itself has become increasingly violent over seventy years.”

Until just this past October, the National Human Rights Commission reported 77 deaths in police custody, 1,338 deaths in judicial custody, and 62 alleged extrajudicial killings.

As reported by Reuters, Indian security officials have said that a number of assassinations have been carried out by The Resistance Front (TRF), which they describe as “a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based militant group, and Hizbul Mujahideen, a group traditionally made up of local fighters.”

The U.S. has held a long-standing sentiment that the status of Kashmiri territory should be settled through negotiations between India and Pakistan.

Pakistan has vociferously condemned the Indian government’s handling of Jammu and Kashmir, using their infliction of violence and human rights violations as reasoning for why Kashmir should belong to Pakistan.

Politicians and human rights groups from around the world have condemned India’s recent actions in Kashmir, though that doesn’t mean they’re taking effective action. Because of India’s status as a “strategic trading partner,” foreign officials’ responses have been silent.

“The United States has given India a free pass to do whatever it wants in Kashmir. They have treated Kashmir as, what was initially an international dispute, a dispute between India and Pakistan; now it is really seen as India’s internal issue,” Kanjwal argued.

As of right now, “the future is very bleak, unfortunately, because of the way that geopolitics is going on, where very few countries want to say what’s going on in Kashmir. I think that, unless people are mobilized to be more active and vocal about what’s happening, India will continue to get away with its actions,” Kanjwal wrote.

To Kashmiri residents like Ali, the abolishment of the illegal military occupation is just one step towards “a peaceful settlement of this political conflict that is as per the wishes and aspirations of the Indigenous people of Jammu and Kashmir.”