Five years after losing its autonomous status under Articles 370 and 35A, Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir faces profound challenges. The revocation stripped the region of its unique identity, subjected its people to lockdowns and brutality, and left deep psychological scars.  

Five years have passed since Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) lost its special autonomous status, once enshrined under Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution, which allowed the region to maintain its own constitution, separate flag, and autonomy over internal affairs. Today, IIOJK remains shrouded in uncertainty, grappling with profound psychological, economic, and political challenges. The revocation of its autonomy has not only stripped away its unique identity but also subjected its people to relentless lockdowns and the brutalities of Indian forces, leaving deep psychological scars. This pivotal change has plunged the Valley into a state of dismay and turmoil, highlighting the enduring impact of this historic decision on the region’s future.

The amendments to key land laws, including the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act of 1950, the Jammu and Kashmir Land Grants Act of 1960, the Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act of 1938, the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act of 1976, and the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act of 1996, have collectively dismantled the existing protections for local landowners. 

Despite not considering themselves part of India, the people of IIOJK were deeply concerned about the loss of the guarantees given by Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, these articles held significant importance for the region of Jammu and Kashmir, both legally and symbolically. Article 370, incorporated into the Indian Constitution in 1949, granted special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir. This provision allowed the state to have its own constitution, a separate flag, and autonomy over internal matters except for defense, communications, finance, and foreign affairs, which remained under the jurisdiction of the Indian government. This Article also stipulates that the state's residents lived under different laws than the rest of India, particularly concerning citizenship, property ownership, and fundamental rights.
Article 35A, added to the Constitution through a Presidential Order in 1954, further reinforced the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The Article empowered the state's legislature to define permanent residents and accord them special rights and privileges. These included the ability to own land and property in the state, access to government jobs, and the right to scholarships and other forms of aid. Non-residents were prohibited from buying property or settling in the state. The provisions of Articles 370 and 35A were essential for preserving Jammu and Kashmir's unique identity, culture, and demographic composition, fostering a sense of autonomy and self-governance among its residents. 
Over the years, Article 370 witnessed an incremental yet systematic dilution of Jammu and Kashmir’s unique constitutional status. As highlighted by constitutional expert A. G. Noorani, the period between 1952 and 1986 saw the issuance of 47 presidential orders that extended numerous provisions of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir. These orders steadily undermined the autonomy and diminished the special status enshrined to respect the region's distinct identity and the historical guarantees made by its Maharaja. Often made without the consent of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly, these orders violated the spirit of Article 370, which required the state's concurrence for such alterations. This brought the state under the purview of Indian national institutions like the Supreme Court, Election Commission, and the Indian Administrative Services. The erosion culminated in the Modi government's 2019 decision to abrogate Articles 370 and 35A, stripping the region of its special status and fully integrating it into the Indian Union. 
This move contravened international law, violated United Nations (UN)-mandated obligations, and breached the Fourth Geneva Convention. Experts argue that the Modi government’s division of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories goes against UN resolutions, as disputed territories cannot be subdivided into smaller administrative units. It also contradicted historical assurances given to the people of IIOJK, intensifying local discontent and drawing widespread international attention and criticism. 
On August 5, 2019, the Indian government undertook a momentous and contentious move by abrogating Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution through a Presidential Order issued by President Ram Nath Kovind, which superseded the earlier Presidential Order of 1954 that had incorporated Article 35A. This new order allowed the Indian government to apply all provisions of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir, effectively nullifying the state's special status. Concurrently, Home Minister Amit Shah introduced a resolution in the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of Parliament, proposing the abrogation of Article 370. This move was accompanied by introducing the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Bill, which proposed the state's bifurcation into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir with a legislative assembly and Ladakh without one.
Swift and decisive actions in Parliament marked the abrogation process. The resolution and the reorganization bill were debated and passed in the Rajya Sabha on August 5 and subsequently in the Lok Sabha, the lower house, on August 6. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured the necessary majority with support from several other parties. The debate in Parliament was intense, with strong opposition from parties like the Congress, the National Conference, and the People's Democratic Party, who argued that the move was unconstitutional and a betrayal of the trust of the Kashmiri people, which would further alienate the people of IIOJK. Despite the opposition, the government's proposals were passed by a significant majority in both houses. The abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A was legally effectuated, leading to the formal reorganization of the region. This parliamentary manoeuvring underscored the BJP's commitment to its long-standing promise of integrating Jammu and Kashmir fully into India. This move has had profound political and socioeconomic implications for the region and its people.
The implications of this decision were immediate and far-reaching. The revocation was met with a severe security clampdown in Jammu and Kashmir, including the deployment of thousands of additional troops, imposition of curfews, and an unprecedented communications blackout, which included the suspension of internet and phone services. These measures aimed to prevent unrest and maintain order but resulted in significant disruptions to daily life and widespread criticism. Internationally, the move drew sharp reactions, particularly from Pakistan, which condemned it as a violation of UN resolutions and an attempt to alter the region's demographic composition. Human rights organizations and global leaders expressed concerns over the potential for increased human rights violations (HRVs), the undermining of democratic norms and the further alienation of the Kashmiri population. 
Internationally, the revocation drew sharp and varied responses. Pakistan vociferously condemned the move, calling it a violation of UN resolutions and an attempt to alter the demography of the Muslim-majority region. Islamabad downgraded diplomatic ties with India, suspended trade, and sought international intervention, particularly from the UN. China, which has its own territorial disputes with India in Arunachal Pradesh (South Tibet) and Ladakh, expressed concern and supported Pakistan's stance, urging India to maintain regional peace and stability. The broader international community had mixed reactions. At the same time, some countries viewed it as India's internal matter.

While the new laws generally prohibit the sale, transfer, and mortgage of agricultural land to non-agriculturists, exceptions can be granted by the government; for example, state land in Barwal village is now being transferred to the Jammu and Kashmir State Industrial Development Corporation for industrial purposes. Additionally, some land is being allocated to the Indian Army to establish new cantonments and strategic military installations. 

In contrast, others, including human rights organizations and global leaders, expressed alarm over the potential for increased conflict and human rights abuses. In Kashmir, the public response was one of profound anger and distress. The region saw widespread protests despite a heavy security lockdown, curfews, and a communications blackout. The abrupt change and how it was implemented deepened the sense of disenfranchisement among many Kashmiris, leading to prolonged unrest and tension in the region.
Legislative Changes 
Following the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, the Indian government made several legislative changes to restructure the governance and administration of Jammu and Kashmir. These changes aimed to consolidate control and integrate the region more firmly into the Indian Union. According to reports compiled until late last year, out of approximately 334 local laws, 164 were repealed, 167 were adapted to align with the Indian Constitution, and 800 new laws were imposed without accountability. Here’s an overview of the key legislative and administrative actions:
The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019
One of the most notable changes was reorganizing the state into two Union Territories: Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, which the Indian Parliament passed, came into effect on October 31, 2019. This reorganization reduced Jammu and Kashmir from a state with special autonomy to a Union Territory with a legislative assembly. At the same time, Ladakh was designated a Union Territory without a legislative assembly, placing it under direct central government control. This restructuring was claimed to streamline administration and integrate the regions more closely with the rest of India. Still, it also led to significant political and social upheaval in the region.
New Domicile Laws (Demographic Flooding)
In addition to the administrative reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian government introduced significant changes to land laws and domicile rules. The abrogation of Article 35A allowed non-residents to purchase property and settle in the region, overturning previous restrictions that limited land ownership to permanent residents. This shift was further reinforced by the new domicile rules implemented in March 2020, which broadened domicile status to include individuals who have lived in Jammu and Kashmir for 15 years, studied there for seven years, or appeared for class 10th or 12th exams in the region. While the Indian government claims these changes were intended to promote investment and development, they have raised significant concerns among the local population about potential demographic shifts and their cultural and political identity erosion. Analysts believe that these measures, combined with the introduction of residency permits for non-Kashmiris, could lead to land dispossession and marginalization of the indigenous community, exacerbating tensions in an already volatile region. The fears of demographic change from the Modi government's 2019 actions are becoming increasingly tangible for residents as these new laws replace progressive protections with policies perceived as disempowering local residents.
Jammu and Kashmir Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 2020 (Land Grab Laws)
The recent series of amendments to land laws have profound implications for the local population, potentially undermining long-standing land rights and altering the socioeconomic dynamics of the region. One of the most striking changes is the allowance for Indian citizens to purchase land in Jammu and Kashmir, which aims to alter the region's demographic composition. This policy is viewed as an attempt to dilute the Muslim-majority character of the region by facilitating the acquisition of land by non-local residents. The amendments to key land laws, including the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act of 1950, the Jammu and Kashmir Land Grants Act of 1960, the Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act of 1938, the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act of 1976, and the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act of 1996, have collectively dismantled the existing protections for local landowners. The Ministry of Home Affairs, India (MHA) announced these changes on October 26, 2020, under the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Adaptation of Central Laws) Third Order, 2020. The new legal framework has led to land redistribution in Jammu and Kashmir and has been amended to permit land transactions by individuals outside the region. While the new laws generally prohibit the sale, transfer, and mortgage of agricultural land to non-agriculturists, exceptions can be granted by the government; for example, state land in Barwal village is now being transferred to the Jammu and Kashmir State Industrial Development Corporation (SIDCO) for industrial purposes. Additionally, some land is being allocated to the Indian Army to establish new cantonments and strategic military installations. These developments reflect a shift in priorities towards industrialization and military expansion, overshadowing the previous focus on protecting local agricultural and land rights.

Another controversial announcement was made in August 2022 that voting rights would be extended to any Indian citizen residing temporarily in Jammu and Kashmir. This move aimed to add approximately 2.5 million new voters, primarily including Indian military personnel, government and private sector employees, and migrant workers, to the existing 7.6 million voters. 

Redrawing Political Constituencies 
Significant changes were made to Jammu and Kashmir's electoral landscape, beginning with the Indian government's delimitation exercise. The Delimitation Commission, responsible for redrawing electoral constituencies, released its final report on May 5, 2022. This report increased the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly from 83 to 90, allocating 43 seats to the Hindu-majority Jammu region and 47 to the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley. While Jammu saw an increase of six seats, Kashmir Valley received only one additional seat despite its larger population—6.8 million compared to Jammu's 5.3 million, according to the 2011 Census. Critics argue that this adjustment was politically motivated, aiming to reduce Kashmiri representation and enhance Jammu's influence, further exacerbating regional tensions. The report also reserved nine seats for scheduled tribes and reorganized Lok Sabha constituencies, contributing to the perception that the reforms are part of a broader strategy to alter the region's demographic and political dynamics. Another controversial announcement was made in August 2022 that voting rights would be extended to any Indian citizen residing temporarily in Jammu and Kashmir. This move aimed to add approximately 2.5 million new voters, primarily including Indian military personnel, government and private sector employees, and migrant workers, to the existing 7.6 million voters. Before the abrogation of Article 370, voting rights were restricted to permanent residents or State Subjects. Observers suggest that this extension of voting rights is part of a broader agenda to alter the region's demographic and political landscape. These electoral reforms are part of a draconian set of measures to solidify control over Jammu and Kashmir.
Further changes were enacted when India's lower house of Parliament approved legislation in December 2023 to add five nominated members to the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. This new legislation includes two members representing Kashmiri Pandits, one from displaced persons from Azad Kashmir, and two women, all nominated by the state governor. Experts argue that these nominations could skew the balance of power in the Assembly in favor of the ruling party, influencing the legislative dynamics to support the central government's political agenda. This measure has been seen as potentially reinforcing the central government's control and further shifting the political balance in IIOJK.
Controversial Media Policy 2020
To further intensify its control, the Indian government introduced the Media Policy 2020, which came into effect on May 15, 2020; this policy sparked widespread protests and raised significant concerns about press freedom in the region and across India. The policy granted the Jammu and Kashmir Department of Information and Public Relations (DIPR) broad authority to scrutinize media content for authenticity, fake news, and sensitive material. It empowered the DIPR to take action against media outlets deemed involved in unethical or anti-national activities, including deempanelment and legal proceedings.
The policy grants the DIPR extensive and unregulated powers to scrutinize media content, risk infringing on the fundamental right to press freedom, as protected under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution, including the ability to address alleged issues such as fake news, unethical practices, and anti-national activities. This raises significant concerns about press freedom, as the broad and vague definitions used—such as "fake news" and "anti-national"—allow for arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement. The policy's dual approach of deempanelment and legal action against media outlets exacerbates these concerns, potentially leading to self-censorship and stifling critical journalism. Several journalists and media outlets have become victims of this policy. Notably, prominent figures like journalist Asif Sultan, Sajjad Gul Fahad Shah, and the Kashmir Walla Magazine have faced legal actions and restrictions under this new framework. The international media community has also expressed alarm over the erosion of media freedoms in Jammu and Kashmir. Reports from organizations such as Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists have highlighted growing concerns about the suppression of press freedom and the impact of such policies on journalism in the region. These reports underscore the broader implications of the policy for democratic principles and the right to information.
More Powers to Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor
The recent extension of the Lieutenant Governor's administrative authority in Jammu and Kashmir significantly undermines the region's democratic processes. The July 12, 2023, amendment to the Transaction of Business Rules grants the Lieutenant Governor extensive control over key administrative functions, reducing the powers of the elected state legislature and Chief Minister. This move has been criticized for undermining democratic governance and contradicting promises to restore full statehood to the region. The timing of these amendments, just before the upcoming Assembly elections, raises concerns about the legitimacy and effectiveness of the elections, casting a shadow over the region's democratic future. These changes effectively reduce the powers of the elected state legislature and the Chief Minister, further centralizing authority in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor, an unelected representative appointed by the central government. This shift has been criticized for undermining democratic governance in Jammu and Kashmir, as it limits the ability of locally elected representatives to make decisions and manage administrative affairs.
Local political leaders and parties have voiced strong opposition to these amendments. Critics argue that this move violates the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 and contradicts the central government's promises to restore full statehood to the region. The central government's insistence that these changes do not alter the balance of power is met with skepticism, as the extension of the Lieutenant Governor's powers diminishes the role and influence of elected officials.
The timing of these amendments, just before the upcoming Assembly elections, raises concerns about the legitimacy and effectiveness of the elections. With significant powers delegated to an unelected Lieutenant Governor, the role of the elected Chief Minister and the legislature is severely curtailed. This scenario parallels ongoing tensions in Delhi, where the local government struggles with the Lieutenant Governor's overriding authority.
Historically, the central government has maintained a tight grip on IIOJK, often at the expense of local self-governance. The current situation exacerbates this trend, casting a shadow over the region's democratic future and fostering a sense of disenfranchisement among its people. 
Human Rights Concerns 
The interconnectedness of these administrative changes and the motives behind them is further compounded by numerous reports from reputable organizations consistently highlighting serious human rights issues in Jammu and Kashmir. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released its first report on Kashmir, detailing excessive use of force by security forces, arbitrary detentions, and severe restrictions on freedom of expression. Following the revocation of Article 370 on August 5, 2019, the region saw an intensified security lockdown, communication blackouts, and mass detentions, as noted by the OHCHR and Human Rights Watch (HRW). In subsequent years, Amnesty International and HRW reported on prolonged detentions under the Public Safety Act (PSA), excessive use of force, and restrictions on movement and Assembly. The U.S. State Department's annual reports have also underscored severe restrictions on civil liberties. Despite some easing restrictions, periodic internet shutdowns and ongoing detentions continue to affect daily life. The Indian government maintains that these measures are necessary for security and combating terrorism. Still, international and local human rights organizations continue to document significant human rights abuses, including the use of pellet guns, arbitrary detentions, and curbs on freedom of the press.
The new laws have significantly impacted the livelihoods of residents as well, particularly those belonging to the working-class community. For instance, the changes in mining rules have created a climate of opposition and suspicion among the general public. Sand miners, diggers, and boat owners now find themselves at a distinct disadvantage as the new policy disrupts their traditional means of livelihood. Additionally, these legislative changes are not merely economic but also cultural. The replacement of Urdu with Hindi as the official language, renaming of places, and restrictions on cultural and religious practices represent an aggressive attempt to undermine and erase the distinct cultural and religious identities of the Kashmiri people. Denial of rights to worship, travel abroad, and access to employment further alienate the local population, exacerbating their sense of disenfranchisement and marginalization. This systematic approach to altering Jammu and Kashmir's social, cultural, and economic landscape underscores a broader settler-colonial agenda aimed at transforming the region's demographic and cultural fabric.
Antony Loewenstein, in his book The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the World, explains that Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has given it invaluable experience in controlling an "enemy" population. He notes that India is a primary buyer of this technology, employing it in Jammu and Kashmir.
The developments in Jammu and Kashmir over the past five years, marked by the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A, have dramatically altered the region's political and social fabric. The Indian government's introduction of significant administrative changes and new land laws appears to be aimed at fundamentally reshaping the character of the Kashmir conflict. This approach, which includes expanding the Lieutenant Governor's authority and facilitating demographic shifts, seems to overshadow the core issue: the promised right to self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The focus on altering the region's status and governance risks neglecting its residents' fundamental grievances and aspirations.
Reports from international human rights organizations highlight the severe impact on Kashmiris' daily lives, with ongoing restrictions and detentions indicating a precarious state of civil liberties. Antony Loewenstein's book suggests that the role of foreign technology in controlling populations further complicates the situation.
A proactive and multipronged strategy is essential to address these challenges. This approach should prioritize dialogue, uphold human rights, and restore democratic processes while converging global attention. The path to a peaceful and just resolution lies in addressing the genuine grievances of the Kashmiri people, ensuring their voices are heard, and fostering an environment of justice and equity. Only then can the region's unique identity be respected and its people live with dignity and freedom.

The writer is a PhD scholar in International Relations at NUML, a political and social analyst based in Muzaffarabad, and a human rights campaigner. X: @NylaKayani 
E-mail: [email protected]