Q.What are the various positions on the issue of regional autonomy for Kashmir? Which of these do you think are justifiable? Give reasons for your answer.

Regional Autonomy for Kashmir: Positions and Assessment

The Kashmir question has generated three principal positions on autonomy, each reflecting different constitutional and political philosophies.

The three main positions:

1. Greater autonomy within India – Restore Article 370's original scope (pre-2019), granting Kashmir its own constitution, flag, and control over all matters except defence, foreign affairs, and communications. This view holds that the state's accession was conditional on preserving its special status.

2. Integration with full statehood – Kashmir should have the same constitutional status as other Indian states, with no special provisions. Proponents argue that Article 370 hindered development and national integration; its abrogation in 2019 and subsequent reorganisation into Union Territories reflects this position.

3. Independence or Pakistan accession – Some groups demand either sovereign independence or merger with Pakistan, citing the principle of self-determination and the region's Muslim-majority character.

Justifiability depends on constitutional and democratic principles:

The first position (greater autonomy) finds justification in India's federal asymmetry—the Constitution already grants special provisions to several states (Nagaland under Article 371A, for instance). Autonomy can accommodate regional identity while maintaining sovereignty, provided it does not violate fundamental rights or national integrity. …

The question of Kashmir's autonomy sits at the intersection of constitutional law, historical promises, democratic rights, and geopolitical reality. Understanding the positions requires recognising that Kashmir's accession to India in 1947 came with conditions that distinguished it from other princely states, creating a unique constitutional arrangement that has been progressively modified, contested, and ultimately transformed.

The Core Positions

1. Full Integration (Abrogation of Special Status)

This position, implemented through the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, holds that Kashmir should have the same constitutional status as any other Indian state or union territory. Proponents argue that special status created a "state within a state," hindered economic development, prevented full application of fundamental rights, and perpetuated separatism by maintaining a distinct political identity.

The reasoning rests on national unity: one nation cannot have differential citizenship rights. Article 370 restricted property rights for non-Kashmiris, limited the applicability of the Indian Constitution, and maintained separate symbols of sovereignty. Integration, in this view, brings Kashmir into the constitutional mainstream, extends all central laws uniformly, and removes legal barriers to investment and development.

2. Restoration of Greater Autonomy (Pre-1953 or Enhanced Self-Governance)

This position advocates returning to the original spirit of accession, when Kashmir retained autonomy over all matters except defence, foreign affairs, and communications. The Instrument of Accession and Article 370 were meant to preserve Kashmir's internal sovereignty while securing it within the Indian Union. Proponents argue that successive erosions of autonomy—through presidential orders extending central laws, the dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953, and finally the 2019 abrogation—violated the terms under which Kashmir joined India.

The autonomy demand ranges from restoring statehood (currently Jammu & Kashmir is a union territory) to reviving Article 370 in its original form. The argument emphasises that the Kashmiri people were promised self-governance, that this promise was enshrined in the Constitution, and that unilateral changes without the consent of the state's elected representatives breach the federal compact.

3. Self-Determination (Independence or Accession to Pakistan)

This position holds that Kashmir's future should be decided by its people through a plebiscite, as promised in UN resolutions and by Indian leaders in the early years after Partition. Some advocate complete independence (azaadi), while others support accession to Pakistan on religious or cultural grounds.

The self-determination argument invokes the principle that sovereignty ultimately rests with the people, that the accession was conditional and disputed (Pakistan claims it was obtained through coercion), and that the Kashmiri people have never been allowed to freely choose their political future. The UN Security Council resolutions of 1948–49 called for a plebiscite after demilitarisation, a commitment India accepted at the time.

Evaluating Justifiability

Constitutional and Legal Legitimacy

The full integration position has constitutional backing post-2019: Parliament, exercising its sovereign power, abrogated Article 370 through a procedure that, while contested, was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Constitution grants Parliament the authority to alter state boundaries and constitutional provisions. From a purely legal standpoint within the current framework, integration is now the established position.

However, the autonomy position points to the constitutional morality of the original compact. Article 370 was not an ordinary provision—it was the constitutional bridge that made Kashmir's accession possible. The state's Constituent Assembly, which alone had the power to recommend abrogation, was dissolved in 1957 without doing so. The 2019 procedure bypassed the state's elected representatives (the assembly was dissolved, and the Governor's concurrence was obtained), raising questions about whether the spirit of federalism and the specific terms of Kashmir's accession were honoured.

Democratic Principles and Consent

Democracy requires that major constitutional changes affecting a region have the consent of its people or their representatives. The autonomy position draws strength from the fact that mainstream Kashmiri political parties, across the spectrum, opposed the abrogation. Elections in Kashmir have consistently returned parties that advocated for greater autonomy or special status, suggesting popular support for a distinct constitutional arrangement.

The integration position counters that Parliament represents all Indians, including Kashmiris, and that national decisions can be taken by the national legislature. Moreover, separatist boycotts and violence have distorted the political process, making it difficult to gauge genuine public opinion.

The self-determination position has the strongest democratic claim in principle: allowing people to choose their political future is the essence of democracy. However, this runs into practical and legal obstacles. India's position since the 1950s has been that the plebiscite commitment lapsed because Pakistan never fulfilled the precondition of withdrawing its forces, and that Kashmir's accession is final and complete. Legally, no constitutional provision allows for secession or a referendum on sovereignty.

Historical Commitments and Trust

The autonomy position is strongest on historical grounds. Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, and other leaders explicitly promised that Kashmir would retain internal autonomy and that its accession was not a merger. Sheikh Abdullah's acceptance of accession was predicated on these assurances. The gradual erosion of autonomy, particularly the dismissal and imprisonment of Abdullah, is seen as a betrayal of trust that fuelled alienation.

The self-determination argument also invokes broken promises: the plebiscite commitment made to the UN and to the Kashmiri people was never honoured. While India argues that changed circumstances (Pakistan's aggression, the passage of time, demographic changes) made the plebiscite impractical, the promise remains unfulfilled.

The integration position acknowledges these historical commitments but argues that circumstances have evolved. Seven decades of integration, multiple elections, and the development of democratic institutions have created new realities. Article 370, rather than fostering integration, became a symbol of separateness that hindered full participation in the Indian polity.

Security and Stability

The integration position emphasises that special status was exploited by separatists and Pakistan to maintain Kashmir's contested status, fuelling insurgency and cross-border terrorism. Full integration, in this view, removes ambiguity about Kashmir's place in India and allows for more effective governance and security measures. …