For years now, the state of Jammu and Kashmir has been a point of contention and conflict in South East Asia. In fact, while it has long been a part of the country, it can also be looked at as a contractual gem to India. In 1846, Jammu and Kashmir was integrated as a part of India through a financial deal between Raja Gulab Singh and the East India. This integration made the valley a part of the Sikh territories. However, in 1947, when Maharaja Hari Singh succumbed to anti-Hindu forces in the valley, he demanded assistance from Nehru against the transfer of Kashmir to India as described in the “Instrument of Accession to India.” As a result, in 1947, the state of Kashmir was made a part of India and has been one ever since.

Division of Kashmir

          Over the last two weeks, the conversation regarding Kashmir’s security status has been an agenda for international discussions amidst US President Donald Trump’s controversial statement on the path to resolution of safety in the valley. All discussions were put tocame to a stand-still when, on Monday, the President of India, Ram Nath Kovind, passed a decree to remove article 370 and 35A from the Indian constitution.The path to the omission of Article 370 and Article 35A from the constitution wasn’t an easy one, it had to be one filled with political and strategic planning. With the presidency of Trump, the United States has slowly shifted focus from Pakistan towards hailing India as an integral ally in its struggles against China. This rebuff in America coupled with Pakistan’s financial troubles put it in an unfavorable position to launch an attack or formal diplomatic opposition to India. Secondly, no country other than Pakistan, including countries of the middle east or Pakistan’s neighbor, China, have launched diplomatic attacks at India. While there have been some that have condemned attacks, UAE’s ambassador stated that the removal of Article 370 would “reduce regional disparity”

Another point of contention is Imran Khan’s statement that India violated its own laws as well as international laws to uphold their ideology. This statement isn’t completely valid because the nature of a presidential decree supersedes all regulations binding the country and hence, holds legal strength.

           The Government of India (GOI) was aware of the possible backlash in the valley. Starting in late July, the Center began deploying military forces into the valley and attempted to establish a state of curfew and perhaps, establish situations similar to those described under Criminal Procedure Code Article 144 – which legally abolishes the right to conduct public gatherings of four or more people. While the deployment continues, the situation in the valley continues to remain tense.

           When the decree was placed in front of the Parliament, the upper house, that is the Rajya Sabha, was taken by surprise. While political parties protested the decree and walked out of the parliament, political parties like the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) that typically tend to stand at odds with the BJP supported the decree and allowed for its smooth passing. In the Lok Sabha, the BJP dominated the lower house and passed the decree without breaking a sweat. While the climate in which this decree was passed may be contentious, in the short run, it is hard to believe that it will be challenged in the courts of India. However, while the move could be challenged at the UN, it is still unproven that the move was unconstitutional.

           This decree will have a myriad of impact on the state of Kashmir, both in the short run as well as in the long run. With the removal of Article 370 and 35A, the special status of Kashmir has been repealed and this means  that centrally established regulations will be applied to the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh. It also means that the aforementioned Union Territories will be controlled and administered through a liaison of the government operating in that region. He/She/They will be elected by the President, thereby ensuring central control or direct oversight for situations in the valley. While this could have counter-intuitive effects (like misleading leadership in the valley clubbed with instigation of anti-muslim or anti-Hindu Pandit sentiments through or from the Central government) if the central government does not conduct appropriate oversight; The possibilities of such a thing happening amidst Kashmir being a hot debate topic for elections are unlikely. At the same time, the status of Jammu and Kashmir is debatable as they have been granted a with-legislative status. This means that the union territory, like New Delhi, will have its legislative assembly but the power to make a decision or veto a decision made by the assembly rests in the hands of Lieutenant Governor. The possibility of difference of opinion makes the UT vulnerable to difficult decision making that is inclined in the interests of the people of the valley.

           From an economic standpoint, I believe that this decree will benefit the valley in the long run. With the right to ownership open to all, the two Union territories will likely see an influx of financial resources coupled with an expansion of the transportation sector. This will help people in attaining a higher quality of life, greater financial wealth and access to benefits of social services like but not limited to, private hospitals and education.

           Socially, the people from the valley are bound to prosper. With the opportunity to private hospitals and education units to step into the Kashmir valley, the general health and welfare of the Kashmiris are bound to improve. The influx of new ownership and capital would also guarantee jobs. Similarly, the jobs created in this process could lead to lower amounts of extremist activities through appropriate utilization of unemployed youth – majority of extremists in the valley. Additionally, the concept of reservation will apply to the region. The main reason why BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party) voted in favor of the decree was that the omission of 370 and 35A would guarantee people from minority classes a right to obtain higher education through the reservation quota described in the constitution under the ninety-fifth amendment.

           These things sound extremely good for the valley. But I would be naïve to ignore the situation that the government has effectively caused in the valley. The GOI has caused the imprisonment of tens of politicians on the grounds of instigation of violence, kept multiple politicians under house arrest, caused a curfew-like situation in the valley and used the Presidential decree to strip the status and rights of a state. Along with all the efforts to curb democrary in the valley, the government has established an all out internet black out and opposition to press initiated interrogations. This has caused the government to reach new heights of undemocratic behavior. What worries me, even more, is that the government can strip down Article 351 – article granting special status to the Eastern states of India – on similar grounds as used in the Kashmir valley.

           The decision to unroot the fundamentals of the statehood of Kashmir was a landmark decision and could prove to be otherwise in the years to come. I am deeply concerned about the local reaction that is currently being suppressed, the possibility of protests in the near future, and the democratic rights of the people of Kashmir. Meanwhile, I am a strong believer of the fact that the process deployed to strip the state of kashmir of its guaranteed rights continues to be worrisome. Subsequently, the inability to judge what the future holds for Kashmir is something that I hope the GOI has already figured out. What holds in the future for Kashmir is something that only the future can tell. Until then, I hope that the decree plays its course and establishes the two union territories as described.