Five years have passed since the Indian government revoked Article 370, a constitutional provision that granted Jammu and Kashmir a measure of autonomy within the Indian union. The move, hailed by New Delhi as a historic correction, has redrawn not only the internal political map of India but also the contours of South Asian geopolitics. However, rather than fostering integration or peace, the post-Article 370 landscape is marked by democratic erosion, civil unrest, and deteriorating diplomatic channels between India and Pakistan. Despite temporary military calm along the Line of Control, the broader question looms whether the region has come any closer to peace or if Kashmir is now trapped in a new cycle of managed conflict and political stagnation.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
Led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, Cssprepforum helps 70,000+ aspirants monthly with top-tier CSS/PMS content. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for solved past papers, expert articles, and free study resources shared by qualifiers and high scorers.
To understand the implications, it is essential to recall the events of August 5, 2019, when the Government of India revoked Article 370. This constitutional article had, for decades, granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, allowing it its own flag, constitution, and autonomy in all matters except defense, foreign affairs, and communications. Although in practice this autonomy had eroded over time, the symbolic significance of Article 370 remained immense, particularly for the Muslim-majority population of the Kashmir Valley. However, the suddenness and secrecy with which the article was revoked, under an unprecedented security lockdown, mass arrests, and communication blackouts, underscored the unilateral nature of the move.
As a result of this action, Jammu and Kashmir was not only stripped of its special status but also bifurcated into two union territories, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government justified the move by asserting that it was necessary to end separatism, promote development, and integrate the region with the rest of India. Consequently, Pakistan, which has long claimed Kashmir as a disputed territory, condemned the move as a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and bilateral agreements. In response, Islamabad downgraded diplomatic ties, suspended trade, and launched an international campaign to highlight the Kashmiri struggle. However, five years later, it is imperative to ask whether this constitutional overhaul led to progress or if it entrenched a new political and human rights crisis, leaving the region in a state of unresolved conflict.
One of the most tangible outcomes of the post-Article 370 period has been the centralization of power. With Jammu and Kashmir now directly governed by New Delhi through a Lieutenant Governor, the region has remained without an elected assembly since 2014. The Modi government has claimed that central rule has enabled smoother governance, curbed corruption, and accelerated infrastructure projects. Indeed, there have been visible improvements in roads, electricity access, and rural development, which the central government proudly showcases as achievements.
Nevertheless, governance without democratic representation raises troubling questions about legitimacy and public trust. The local population, especially in the Kashmir Valley, remains largely alienated and politically voiceless. A region with deep political consciousness is now administered without a functioning legislative assembly, without an independent press, and without any meaningful space for dissent. Prominent political leaders, including three former chief ministers, were detained for extended periods, and while some have since been released, others continue to operate under the shadow of state surveillance and political restriction.
Furthermore, the introduction of new domicile laws allowing non-residents to purchase land and apply for government jobs has alarmed many local communities. These laws have triggered fears of demographic re-engineering, a concept with deep emotional and political resonance in a region with a long history of contestation. Therefore, the erosion of federalism and democratic accountability is increasingly being masked as administrative efficiency, and that raises serious concerns about long-term stability and inclusivity.
On the security front, it is true that militancy in Kashmir has not disappeared but has instead taken a different form. While large-scale terror attacks have declined in number, there has been a noticeable increase in targeted killings. These include attacks on local politicians, migrant workers, teachers, and even civilians. Security forces have claimed operational successes, including the elimination of key militant leaders and the dismantling of insurgent networks. Yet this relative calm has come at a significant cost.
Today, the Valley remains one of the most militarized zones in the world, with over 600,000 troops reportedly deployed. Civil liberties are frequently curtailed, and the atmosphere of fear is ever-present. Journalists face intimidation and harassment, internet shutdowns continue to be used as a tool of control, and preventive detentions under laws such as the Public Safety Act are widely reported. According to human rights organizations, Kashmir has increasingly turned into a surveillance state, where peace is not negotiated or consented to, but enforced through power.
This managed peace may ensure short-term security and surface-level calm, but it does little to address the emotional and psychological trauma of a population that feels ignored and betrayed. Moreover, when dissent is suppressed and political discourse is stifled, resistance does not disappear. Instead, it is driven underground and re-emerges in more insidious and sometimes radical forms, making future reconciliation even more difficult.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s response to the abrogation of Article 370 was initially intense and vociferous. Prime Minister Imran Khan accused India of war crimes, raised the issue repeatedly in global forums, and called for international intervention. Pakistan suspended trade and downgraded diplomatic ties with India, while also releasing a new political map that included all of Kashmir. However, beyond these symbolic measures and rhetorical condemnations, Islamabad found itself unable to significantly shift international opinion or exert meaningful pressure on New Delhi.
Internally, Pakistan faces mounting challenges. The country’s economy is in distress, burdened by inflation, currency depreciation, and an austerity-driven International Monetary Fund program. Political instability, including frequent changes in leadership and ongoing civil-military tensions, further weakens the state’s capacity to focus on long-term foreign policy goals. While Pakistan continues to portray itself as the champion of the Kashmiri cause, its options are limited, and its influence over the evolving ground realities in Kashmir appears to be diminishing.
Moreover, the regional strategic landscape has changed dramatically since the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan. With the Taliban now back in power, Pakistan has had to shift attention to border security, extremism, and internal militancy. These priorities have, in effect, pushed Kashmir lower on Islamabad’s foreign policy agenda, creating a strategic vacuum that India has used to consolidate control.
Compounding the complexity is China’s increasing interest and involvement in the Kashmir issue. Following the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir and the elevation of Ladakh to union territory status, China expressed strong objections, particularly regarding areas it claims as part of Aksai Chin. In 2020, a deadly clash between Indian and Chinese troops in the Galwan Valley further heightened tensions. Since then, Beijing has not only increased military presence along the Line of Actual Control but has also backed Pakistan diplomatically in global forums.
As a result, the Kashmir dispute, long viewed as a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, now carries a trilateral dimension. China’s strategic interests may not align perfectly with Pakistan’s, but their mutual rivalry with India creates an alignment that complicates resolution efforts. For New Delhi, managing both western and northern fronts simultaneously have become increasingly difficult and costly.
Internationally, the response to India’s actions in Kashmir has been muted. While the UN and various human rights organizations have expressed concern, major global powers such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union have avoided taking firm positions. India’s rising economic clout, its role as a strategic counterweight to China, and its large market potential have all contributed to the global community’s reluctance to intervene.
India has leveraged this silence by projecting a carefully managed image of normalcy in Kashmir. Delegations of foreign diplomats have been taken on orchestrated visits to showcase development, investment opportunities, and cultural harmony. However, such narratives rarely reflect the day-to-day realities of most Kashmiris, who continue to live under curfews, surveillance, and the absence of political representation.
One of the most concerning aspects of the post-Article 370 scenario is the lack of a roadmap for peace. Since 2019, there has been no meaningful diplomatic dialogue between India and Pakistan. While a February 2021 ceasefire agreement along the Line of Control brought a temporary pause in hostilities, it has not evolved into any substantive engagement. India insists that talks can only occur once Pakistan halts cross-border terrorism, while Pakistan insists that Kashmir’s status and autonomy must be central to any negotiation. This deadlock, combined with growing nationalism on both sides, leaves little room for diplomacy or compromise.
Additionally, the Kashmiri people themselves remain conspicuously absent from any peace discussions. No effort has been made to engage local leaders, civil society, or youth in shaping the future of the region. As long as the people of Kashmir are excluded from decisions about their governance and future, the peace process cannot be meaningful or lasting.
Join 3-Day Free Orientation for CSS/PMS English Essay & Precis Course
Learn to Qualify for CSS 2026/27 & PMS with Sir Syed Kazim Ali’s free 3-day online orientation. Learn essay & precis writing. Limited seats available; register via WhatsApp by June 29!
The trajectory of Kashmir over the past five years reveals a paradox. While India has succeeded in altering the legal and military structure of the region, it has not succeeded in winning the trust of its people. Pakistan, although vocally supportive, finds itself strategically cornered. China’s presence complicates matters further, and the global community appears disinterested in getting involved. What remains is a fragile status quo, stable in appearance but brittle underneath. Long-lasting peace requires dialogue, empathy, and political courage, all of which are currently in short supply.
Kashmir, five years after the revocation of Article 370, stands at a defining moment in history. India sees its actions as a step toward national integration, yet the prevailing ground realities suggest deepening alienation, democratic stagnation, and silenced voices. Pakistan’s rhetoric is louder than its diplomatic impact, and China's emerging role introduces new risks and rivalries. If peace in South Asia is to be a real prospect, then the future of Kashmir cannot be dictated from courtrooms or enforced by military might. It must be negotiated through inclusive dialogue, mutual respect, and above all, by listening to the people of Kashmir, whose lives, identities, and aspirations lie at the heart of this enduring conflict.
