The abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A by India on 5 August 2019 marked a disturbing and unlawful moment in the history of Jammu and Kashmir. It fundamentally reshaped the region’s political and legal status in a manner that was both unilateral and coercive, violating the conditional nature of the accession agreement and going against the bilateral terms agreed upon in 1947. This action was not only contrary to the spirit of the original accession but also directly contradicted the UN framework India had agreed to, which called for a plebiscite to allow the people of Kashmir to determine their future. Given this historical context, the Kashmiri people could not be so insane as to accept such a drastic decision that strips them of their rights and downgrades their political status. The Indian government’s actions not only disregarded the promise of self-determination but also undermined the unique identity and autonomy that had been protected under Article 370. This makes the decision on 5 August 2019 not just a legal misstep, but a violation of the core principles upon which Kashmir’s accession was based. 1. The Conditional Nature of the Accession and the Promise of Self-Determination The accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India on 26 October 1947 was a conditional agreement, made with the understanding that the final political status of the region would be decided by the will of its people through a plebiscite, as mandated by UNSC Resolutions. This was not a full, irrevocable merger but rather a temporary arrangement until the people of Kashmir could exercise their right to self-determination. 1.1 The Promise of a Plebiscite: The right to self-determination has been a central pillar of the Kashmiri struggle, enshrined in both national and international law. UNSC Resolutions, particularly Resolution 47, clearly stated that the will of the people would be the determining factor in deciding Kashmir’s future. India’s commitment to this promise was essential to the legitimacy of the accession, and any unilateral alteration of this framework could only be considered a breach of the original agreement. The continued delay in holding the plebiscite does not invalidate the promise but merely underscores India’s failure to meet its obligations. 1.2 Article 370 and Article 35A: Article 370, inserted into the Indian Constitution, was meant to preserve Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy, protecting its legal and political framework until the people’s will was established. Similarly, Article 35A safeguarded the residents’ special rights concerning land ownership and employment. These provisions reflected the conditional nature of the accession, as they ensured the continued distinctiveness of the region’s political status until a final resolution was reached through democratic means. On 5 August 2019, India’s government took the unprecedented step of abrogating Article 370 and Article 35A, leading to the removal of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and its downgrading to a Union Territory. This move, executed without the consent of the Kashmiri people, not only undermined their rights but also contradicted the principles of the original accession. It represented a disturbing and unlawful act that violated the very terms of the bilateral agreement and the UN framework India had accepted. At the heart of the accession was the mutual agreement that Jammu and Kashmir’s future would be determined through the will of its people. Article 370 and Article 35A were core provisions meant to preserve the political autonomy of the region, which was not meant to be altered unilaterally by the Indian government. The revocation of these provisions violated the conditional nature of the accession, breaking the agreement that the region’s political structure would remain until the plebiscite. India’s actions on 5 August 2019 also violated its international commitments under the UN template. The UNSC Resolutions, particularly Resolution 47, clearly stipulated that the final political status of Kashmir was to be determined through the will of its people, expressed via a plebiscite. By unilaterally altering Kashmir’s status and stripping its autonomy, India violated these commitments, ignoring its obligations under international law to allow the people of Kashmir to decide their future. Article 35A was essential in protecting the rights of the people of Kashmir in relation to land ownership, employment, and residency. By revoking this provision, India opened the door for outsiders to settle in the region, threatening the demographic integrity and identity of the Kashmiri people. These actions not only stripped the people of their rights but also amounted to cultural and political disenfranchisement, deeply affecting the region’s autonomous status. The Kashmiri people could not be so insane as to accept the stripping of their rights, the removal of their autonomy, and the demotion of their statehood through a decision that was imposed upon them unilaterally. Kashmir had, since 1947, maintained its distinct political status under the conditional accession. The people of Kashmir had always exercised their right to self-determination, and any alteration of their political rights was bound to be rejected by them. The right to self-determination has been a central pillar of the Kashmiri struggle, enshrined in both national and international law. The unilateral revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy by India, without the consent of its people, is a direct violation of this fundamental right. Kashmiris had always expected their voice to matter in determining their future, and the 5 August 2019 decision violated this right. In any democratic framework, such drastic changes cannot be imposed without the consent of the people. The disenfranchisement of the Kashmiri people through this unilateral move represents a denial of democracy and is a rejection of the very principles of governance India claims to uphold. How could the Kashmiri people, who have long demanded a say in their future, simply accept such an imposition from the central government? The accession between India and Jammu and Kashmir was always conditional. It was never a permanent merger, but a provisional agreement designed to preserve Kashmir’s political autonomy until a final decision on its status was made by its people. The abrogation of Article 370 fundamentally undermines this condition, rendering the accession invalid as it stands today. India’s unilateral actions have significant legal and international consequences. By violating the UN framework, India has not only undermined the legitimacy of its own constitutional framework but also jeopardized Kashmir’s political status under international law. The promise of a plebiscite, which was the foundation of the original accession, remains unfulfilled, and India’s failure to honour this commitment raises serious questions about the legality and morality of its actions. The writer is the President of JKCHR — an NGO in special consultative status with the UN.