On August 5, 2019, the Hindu nationalist BJP government decided to revoke two parts of the Indian Constitution, Article 370 and Article 35A, while the conflict over the territory of Jammu and Kashmir persisted. This move not only changed the political affiliations map in the region but also attracted a great deal of foreign attention, including the UN Security Council level.

The Indian government revoked Articles 370 and 35A, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special status.

Article 370, passed in 1949, gave autonomy to the Jammu and Kashmir region while dealing with the Indian Union. It gave the state another constitution and restrained the degree of the Indian government’s interference in matters other than defense, foreign and internal investment policies, and postal services.

Article 370 was inherent to the Instrument of Accession signed in 1947 by Maharaja Hari Kumar of Jammu and Kashmir. The document said that Jammu and Kashmir should join the Indian Union but with a provision that it will not be fully under the control of the Indian government.

Affirmed in 1954 through a Presidential Order, the Article 35-A lays down the ability of the legislature to define who is a ‘permanent resident’ of the state and extend ‘rights and privileges’ to them. The Article 35-A was devised to protect the state’s demography, and this factor was a matter of great concern for the state due to its extremely dense sociopolitical infrastructure.

The abrogation led to the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

The Indian government scrapped the abovementioned legislation August 2019, which, in other words, was a withdrawal of Jammu and Kashmir’s reserved status. It was accompanied by bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Such a decision was rather sensitive, as it elicited different reactions within the UN and the global community.

The most crucial impact in relation to the region is the shifting of political structures in Jammu and Kashmir following the removal of these two articles. Depriving the state of its special status has led to shifts in the nature and geographical positioning of the bodies’ administration in integrating Kashmir into the Indian Union in a straight forward manner. This process was welcomed earlier in the region, but on the other hand, certain issues are associated with it, like losing the identity and sovereignty of the region.

Further, the scrapping of Article 35A has altered the balance of ownership and property rights in the segment of the states of Jammu and Kashmir. This results in local people being afraid of their demography and the land that can be provided to those who wish to put it to the test. Also, it has thrown debate about the legal character of many freedoms and protections formerly conferred to the people of the area.

Local residents fear the loss of identity and sovereignty due to changes in property and residency rights.

Closely associated with the political changes are security measures personifying curfews, limits of communication, and increases in the number of military reports. These have provoked cases of human rights abuses, not forgetting the social lifestyle of the people of the area.

However, the world has not come up with a single reaction to India’s actions to abrogate the special status. Pakistan, which has a border issue with India over a portion of Jammu and Kashmir, criticized the move. Pakistan has sought assistance from other nations and has requested the UN to consider this because UN conventions and laws prohibit this act.

Many countries shared a similar opinion as they became concerned regarding the possible upsurge of insecurity in the region. Some have urged for a dialogue between the two countries over the issue, while some have demanded the rights of the people of India or the safety of civilians.

International reactions have been mixed, with some countries urging dialogue and others expressing concern over regional security.

It is cumbersome to define the UNSC’s role concerning the conflict in Kashmir, mainly in the form of a resolution that demands holding a referendum to determine the people’s will. However, the UNSC’s position, especially after the abrogation, has been somehow constrained to a certain degree.

Undoubtedly, the UNSC has held sessions to discuss the situation in Occupied Kashmir up to the present, which enunciates the continuing international concern with the issue. While dialogue has always been an important principle, problems have always been oriented on political issues and, as a rule, on the foreign policies of states.