The revocation of Article 370 by the Indian government in August 2019 marked a watershed moment in South Asian geopolitics, unraveling decades of legal precedent, diplomatic norms, and regional stability between Pakistan and India. What began with the Shimla Agreement in 1972—a treaty aimed at peaceful conflict resolution and mutual respect—has since devolved into unilateralism and hardline posturing. In effect, the abrogation not only altered the constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir but also raised critical questions about bilateral treaties, the role of international law, and the fragile trust between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. Consequently, this editorial examines the historical context, the legal and diplomatic implications of India’s decision, and its impact on the Kashmir dispute and broader regional dynamics. In doing so, it sheds light on how a singular political move has strained an already tenuous relationship and reshaped the contours of South Asian diplomacy.
From Shimla to Stalemate: The Fragile Foundations of Indo-Pak Diplomacy
To understand the magnitude of the 2019 abrogation, one must first revisit the foundations of Indo-Pakistani diplomacy. In the immediate aftermath of the 1971 Indo-Pak war, the Shimla Agreement was signed in July 1972 by Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It was framed as a bilateral commitment to resolve issues, particularly Kashmir through peaceful means and mutual dialogue. While India saw it as a pivot away from international intervention, Pakistan viewed it as an interim arrangement under duress. Over time, this accord became the cornerstone of all subsequent diplomatic engagements, although its interpretation by both parties remained contested and strategically selective.
Fast forward to August 5, 2019, when the Government of India revoked Article 370 of its Constitution, thereby stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special autonomous status. The move bifurcated the region into two union territories—Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh—placing them under direct central control. Importantly, this unilateral alteration of the region’s constitutional status by New Delhi was met with widespread condemnation in Pakistan, which argued it violated multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions, bilateral agreements such as the Shimla Accord and the Lahore Declaration (1999), and international norms of conflict resolution. Thus, what was once a matter of structured dialogue has now evolved into a dangerous precedent of exclusion and confrontation.
August 2019 and After
Shimla Agreement Undermined: From Bilateralism to Unilateralism
To begin with, the abrogation of Article 370 is arguably a clear deviation from the Shimla Agreement, which emphasized the sanctity of the Line of Control and peaceful resolution of disputes. While India has long maintained that Kashmir is an internal matter, the Shimla Accord implies that both countries must mutually decide the fate of the region. Therefore, unilaterally revoking Article 370 and changing the region’s political status without dialogue or prior consultation with Pakistan challenges the spirit, if not the letter, of this bilateral treaty.
Moreover, the Agreement discouraged the use of force and emphasized that any change in the situation on the ground should only come through negotiations. In this light, India’s move has been interpreted by Islamabad as a legal rupture in the bilateral framework that has governed their interactions for decades. For instance, in response to the abrogation on August 5, 2019, Pakistan downgraded diplomatic ties, suspended bilateral trade, and raised the issue at multiple international forums including the United Nations Security Council—moves that reflect the seriousness with which it viewed the violation of the 1972 accord. Hence, what was once a mutual commitment to peaceful diplomacy now risks degenerating into a zero-sum game of strategic assertion.
Legal Questions and International Law Violations
Building on this erosion of bilateralism, the legal ramifications of India's decision further complicate the issue. Pakistan has consistently argued that India’s abrogation of Article 370 violates UN Security Council resolutions, particularly Resolutions 47 and 122, which call for a plebiscite and prohibit unilateral alterations to the disputed region. While India maintains that Article 370 was a temporary provision and revocable through internal procedures, critics argue that the move effectively nullifies the international commitment to allow the people of Kashmir to determine their future. This concern was echoed by the United Nations Secretary-General in August 2019, who stated that the position of the UN on Kashmir remains governed by the Charter and applicable Security Council resolutions, reaffirming the disputed status of the region. Additionally, from a legal perspective, the change also raises serious questions about India’s constitutional federalism, the autonomy promised to Jammu and Kashmir under the Instrument of Accession (1947), and the rights of its local population. Although international courts have largely remained hands-off due to the bilateral nature of the Shimla Agreement, the legal vacuum created by India’s action is hard to ignore. Thus, legal ambiguity has further blurred the line between domestic sovereignty and international accountability.
Diplomatic Fallout and Strategic Isolation
Equally significant is the diplomatic fallout that followed the revocation. One of the most immediate impacts was the diplomatic estrangement between Pakistan and India. Islamabad expelled the Indian High Commissioner, suspended bilateral trade, and intensified lobbying in international forums. However, the diplomatic dividend was limited. While Turkey, China, and Malaysia expressed concern, major powers like the United States, Russia, and even the EU largely viewed it as an internal Indian issue or called for restraint without taking sides. For example, a statement by the U.S. State Department on August 7, 2019, acknowledged the change as India’s internal matter but urged respect for human rights and regional stability—reflecting a neutral stance. Consequently, this lack of substantial international support has exposed the limitations of Pakistan’s diplomacy, especially in the absence of a coherent global narrative. The rising India–US strategic partnership, coupled with India’s economic leverage, further marginalized Pakistan’s position and pushed it into tighter alignment with China. This shift, while pragmatic in the short term, risks long-term dependency and limits Pakistan’s strategic flexibility in regional and global diplomacy.
Human Rights and the Legitimacy Question
In tandem with legal and diplomatic tensions, the abrogation has intensified human rights concerns. India’s clampdown on the region, marked by internet shutdowns, political detentions, and a heightened military presence, fueled global concern over civil liberties. According to a 2020 report by Human Rights Watch, the Indian government detained thousands under the Public Safety Act, including minors, and imposed one of the world’s longest internet shutdowns in Kashmir, lasting nearly 18 months. Reports by organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International criticized the Indian government’s approach. For Pakistan, these violations provided a moral high ground to highlight the plight of Kashmiris and project itself as a defender of their rights. Nonetheless, the legitimacy of Pakistan’s narrative has often been undermined by governance issues in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan, as well as a perceived reliance on non-state actors in the past. While Islamabad has made notable strides in reforming its image post-FATF, these inconsistencies weaken its moral authority on the Kashmir issue, especially when advocating at international platforms. Therefore, despite moral rhetoric, inconsistencies within Pakistan’s own territories complicate its diplomatic credibility on human rights.
The Plebiscite Conundrum and the Future of Kashmir
Finally, and perhaps most critically, the abrogation has reignited the long-standing plebiscite debate. The plebiscite promised under UNSC resolutions remains a theoretical solution at best, given the entrenched positions of both states. India now sees Kashmir as fully integrated and constitutionally absorbed. Pakistan, on the other hand, continues to call for self-determination. UN Security Council Resolution 47 (1948) had explicitly called for a plebiscite “under UN auspices” to allow Kashmiris to determine their future, but no such referendum has ever taken place, and successive Indian governments have declared the resolution obsolete. As a result, the abrogation has formalized India’s rejection of the plebiscite framework, pushing Kashmir toward a permanent status quo under Indian control. This reconfiguration not only sidelines the Kashmiri voice but also raises broader geopolitical risks. The possibility of future cross-border skirmishes, domestic insurgency, or diplomatic standoffs looms large. By shutting down negotiation channels and bypassing both Kashmiri stakeholders and Pakistan, India has inadvertently widened the gulf and deepened the impasse. In such an environment, the hope for any mediated or multilateral resolution grows increasingly remote.
Taken together, these developments highlight that while India’s abrogation of Article 370 may have been aimed at administrative consolidation and national integration, the move has backfired diplomatically by aggravating tensions with Pakistan and inviting international scrutiny. Conversely, Pakistan’s reactive posture and inability to galvanize global support point to deeper strategic and institutional shortcomings. Ultimately, the Kashmir dispute, already fraught with emotional, historical, and geopolitical baggage, has now entered a more polarized phase, where dialogue seems elusive and legal remedies appear impotent. Unless both sides revisit their entrenched positions, the region will remain mired in volatility and strategic mistrust.
In conclusion, the unilateral revocation of Article 370 represents more than just a constitutional maneuver; it is a geopolitical rupture with profound legal and diplomatic consequences for South Asia. From the promises enshrined in the Shimla Agreement to the ambiguities of international law, every framework governing Pakistan–India relations has been tested. While India insists on internal sovereignty, and Pakistan clings to international legitimacy, the voices of the Kashmiri people remain caught in a crossfire of competing narratives and hardened policies. For meaningful peace to prevail, both countries must return to dialogue, legal consistency, and mutual respect. Otherwise, they risk perpetuating an enduring deadlock with dangerous consequences—not only for Kashmir but for the entire region. Thus, the abrogation of Article 370 should not be seen as the end of diplomacy, but rather as a test of its resilience.
