On August 5, 2019, the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi revoked Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, stripping India-administered Kashmir of its special status and limited autonomy.

Kashmir is part of the wider Himalayan region that both New Delhi and Islamabad claim in full but administer in part.

This change in its status resulted in the bifurcation of the then state of Jammu and Kashmir into two separate provinces, administered directly by the federal government in New Delhi.  

The stated reason for the constitutional move was to end the decades-long insurgency in India’s Muslim-majority region. 

Yet, the insurgency persists in various forms, fuelled by growing resentment among Kashmiris. 

Critics of the Modi government allege that New Delhi wants to change the region’s demographic balance in favour of Hindus while doing away with laws that restrict outsiders from buying properties.

“New Delhi wanted to convey a message of integration by enabling outsiders to invest in Kashmir,” Sheikh Showkat, a Srinagar-based political analyst, tells TRT World.

Analysts paint a grim picture of political alienation and suppressed rights in a region that has already witnessed extreme violence over the last many decades.

The constitutional move extended as many as 890 Indian laws to a region previously shielded by legal protections. Elected representatives of the local population never got the chance to debate, modify or reject these laws. 

As a result, most legal protections ensuring the local population’s land rights and livelihood opportunities have now been dismantled.

“Peace continues to elude Kashmir,” Showkat says.

Mirage of integration

The Modi government presented the 2019 change to the Indian public as a historic correction of a long-standing anomaly. It promised peace and prosperity through unrestricted access to land, investment, and governance aligned with the rest of India.

But the promise of economic transformation through external investment has also fallen flat. Despite legal changes designed to attract investors, Kashmir has received no significant inflow of investment, says Showkat.

The notion of integration, meanwhile, appears more as a unilateral imposition than a consensual unification.

Mujibur Rehman, author and professor at Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi, points to the trust deficit, which has been widened by the 2019 decision.

“There was always a trust deficit between Kashmiri citizens and the Indian state, mainly owing to the military presence and its harsh attitude towards innocent civilians,” he tells TRT World.

The Modi government’s claim about improved law and order rings hollow when measured against electoral outcomes.

“If there was a higher degree of trust, then BJP should have won the elections hands down,” he says, while referring to Modi’s Hindu nationalist party accused of marginalising the Muslim population since it came to power in 2014.

RelatedTRT Global - Trump offers to mediate on Kashmir, but India is not happy. Here’s why

Erasure of political autonomy

The revocation of Article 370 dismantled the framework that granted Kashmir a degree of self-governance. 

Previously, only some parts of the Indian constitution applied to Kashmir while others would apply with the “concurrence of the state”, says Showkat, who teaches international law and human rights at a Kashmir university.

But now, every constitutional provision applies in Kashmir, leaving locals “completely isolated from governance”, he adds.

In other words, the transformation of Kashmir into a union territory directly controlled by New Delhi has removed any semblance of self-governance.

“Not one iota of self-governance exists in Kashmir now,” Showkat says.

By allowing non-residents to purchase property and settle in Kashmir, the revocation of Article 370 opened the door to potential demographic shifts, raising fears among Kashmiris of being reduced to a minority in their own homeland.

Analysts say the policy, far from fostering unity, has intensified feelings of alienation, reinforcing the perception that India seeks to reshape Kashmir’s identity to align with a nationalist vision.

“Village commons, grazing fields, even wetlands, are being earmarked for industrial zones and real estate projects. This is not an accident. It is a calculated reconfiguration of the region’s economic base,” says Nasir Qadri, a Kashmiri international law practitioner.  

The policy aims to weaken the self-sufficiency of the local population, making it vulnerable to forced sale or migration, he adds.

“Law is being used here not as a protective tool, but as an offensive mechanism of dispossession,” he says.

The human rights implications of the 2019 decision are most alarming. Highlighting the systematic erosion of freedoms, Showkat points out that the human rights commission of the erstwhile state has been abolished, leaving victims of abuses without recourse.

“Freedom of expression and freedom of the press have been curtailed. Personal liberties, too, can be taken away arbitrarily,” he says.

A heavy military presence continues to cast a shadow over daily life. With one troop for every 11 citizens, Kashmir ranks among the world’s most heavily militarised regions. 

The 2019-21 lockdown that followed the constitutional change was marked by mass detentions, communication blackouts, and severe restrictions on movement. Internet shutdowns, though less frequent now, remain a tool of control, disrupting daily life and access to information.

“Many people have remained in detention since 2019, including human rights activists,” Showkat says.