You call it the day of abrogation of crucial articles, or Youm-e-Istehsal, the only way the date of 5th August can be defined in the subcontinent’s landscape is a day of law enforcement, propaganda, and bifurcating perspectives. Some may quote the abrogation as a gamble of vetted political interests wrapped in the causes of internal tensions and border infiltrations, whereas someone may differ in opinions. Yet, the importance of the day always lingers down the calendars of India and Pakistan.
The Articles In Question
Before we hop on the day and support, criticize and understand abrogation right away, it is rightfully needed to bring the exact articles – i.e. Article 35A and Article 370 of the Constitution of India to the readers’ attention.
The Article 370 exempted the state of Jammu and Kashmir from the usual state laws and provided it a special status altogether. This was inculcated from the very beginning of the Constitution of India keeping in the mind that the region was a princely state with tremendous annexation pressure. In order to sort the issues, it was necessary for the central power to provide its privileges to gain goodwill and incorporate the region into India as a state later on.
Thus it remains clear that the article was issued on a situational basis and was supposed to be dissolved when the state achieves a political equilibrium. To ensure the privileges are more localised and the special status provided by the Article 370 was pronounced well, the Presidential Order of 1954 instructed that to pass the Article 35A regarding the privileges as mentioned, as a continuation to the Article 370.
The Abrogation
Years together, the special status has been quite weaponised. Multiple martial situations arose on the state borders, internal unrest and the collisions might have been a key reason altogether for the state to proceed for the abrogation. Since 1954, until 2019 – for a span of 65 years, the articles that were meant for temporary resolution froze into a permanent law, as there was no more constituent assembly in the state.
Hence, on 5th August, 2019 – the law was declared “inoperative” as per Presidential Order, 2019. The law, despite being present in the Constitution of India – lost all of its power and the state of Jammu and Kashmir got the privileges over central laws. Following the abrogation, army personnels were deployed to control the unrest that was surely to come as a result of this.
To clench the power and bring the region to a state of diligence to central administration, it was divided into two union territories – Ladakh and Jammu & Kashmir. Not a state anymore, but two presidentially controlled union territories, devoid of any privilege on law and order whatsoever. This was the entire incidence, without any connotation of support or denial towards the involved stakeholders.
Pak or Kashmir’s Messiah?
Jammu and Kashmir has always been a zone of dispute between India and Pakistan and whenever any disciplinary actions have been taken to suppress militants in the former state, Pakistan has always been vocal in the name of human rights. Same went for the Article 370 abrogation incident. The reduction of privileges were directly translated to spearheaded attacks on a certain “religion” and the people of the community, and Pakistan called for all the third-party peacemakers in an officially bilateral issue using all the channels of anti-India publicity. From newspapers to social media Pak was saddened by the heinous act by the Indian government, and announced the day as Youm-e-Istehsal or Day of Exploitation. The true messiah to Kashmir was really heartbroken as central control made the state less vulnerable to Pakistani intrusion.
Shimla Agreement (1972)
Shimla Agreement of 1972, is a bilateral peace treaty between India and Pakistan, signed on July 2, 1972, in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, following the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh). The treaty was signed between the then Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi and President of Pakistan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The agreement was signed after Pakistan’s defeat in the 1971 war and the surrender of about 93,000 Pakistani soldiers in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).
Main Clauses of the Shimla Agreement
1. Peaceful Resolution of Differences: Both countries agreed to settle all disputes bilaterally through peaceful means and without third-party intervention (e.g., UN or external powers).
2. Respect for the Line of Control (LoC): The ceasefire line in Jammu & Kashmir (as of December 17, 1971) was renamed the Line of Control (LoC), and both sides agreed to respect it without attempting to alter it unilaterally.
3. No Unilateral Alteration: Neither side would try to alter the status of Kashmir or the LoC by force or threat of force.
4. Normalization of Relations: Both countries would take steps to restore normal diplomatic and economic relations, including trade, travel, and communications.
5. Return of POWs and Territory: India agreed to release Pakistani prisoners of war and return captured territory (over 5,000 sq. miles), except in Jammu & Kashmir.
Bilateral? Nah!
After the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, Pakistan sought an emergency UN Security Council session, backed by China. The meeting was held behind closed doors and ended without a formal resolution. Pakistan also appealed to the UN Secretary-General, citing UNSC resolutions on Kashmir. While he voiced concern over human rights and urged restraint, he maintained a neutral stance and emphasized peaceful dialogue.
Pakistan urged the OIC to condemn India’s Article 370 move. The OIC issued statements supporting Kashmiri rights and raising concern over the situation. However, key Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE avoided strong criticism due to growing economic and strategic ties with India.
Pak Propaganda Arsenal and Misfires
Anti-India or Anti-Modi?
Eurasian Times article quotes the statement of Pakistan’s then Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi condemning the abrogation. He says – “The secular India of Nehru and Gandhi is dead. I foresee further repression; abrogation of Article 370 will lead to more bloodbath in IoK.” The main target of Pakistan has always been to imply the abrogation as a misuse of power by the Bharatiya Janata Party, that always despised the article, and arguably so, due to religious stances.
A substantial support to this propaganda is unfortunately coming from our side as well, where the anti-Modi or anti-BJP standpoints are blurring the lines between political enmity and national security. When Qureshi mentions Gandhi and Nehru, he directly calls for support of Indian National Congress and indeed they receive the same. To make it clear, this article as well supports the nation and decisions taken for its highest good, and not a figure – and thus the support disheartens the national spirit.
This again raises a contradiction, that Indira Gandhi was the PM of India when Pakistan was making “peace” across our borders in 1971. It is very clear, these were not words of consideration towards lambskin secularism – but the wolf of annexation hidden inside.
Tough Love Perspective
A research work on Journal Of Development and Social Studies by Rehman et al states certain righteous points and quite unbiased opinions on both the involved parties of the entire conflict. The plausible understanding of an unbiased political move by Pakistani scholars is prominent in the work. On the other hand, in a conference by Institute of Political Studies, Islamabad on the very occasion chairman Saleem Bismil, former secretary, Government of AJ&K (Pakistan’s nickname for PoK) – he provocatively quotes this:
“…while India may claim the land, it has failed to win the hearts and minds of the Kashmiri people. “
No facts, no figures, no non-empirical evidence to back this statement. As if Kashmir is not aware of the intentions of Pakistan with its annexation.
Allegations over Human Rights
The FIDH Report
The FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights) published a report in September 2019 documenting serious human rights violations in Jammu & Kashmir following India’s abrogation of Article 370. According to the report, the Indian government imposed a strict curfew and a total communication blackout starting from 4 August 2019. Thousands of troops were deployed across the region without warning. On 5 August, the government moved to revoke Article 370, which had granted Jammu & Kashmir a special constitutional status since 1949.
The FIDH stated that this action violated previous rulings of India’s Supreme Court, which said Article 370 could not be changed without the approval of the J&K Legislative Assembly. The report described how the Indian government then reorganized the state into two union territories (J&K and Ladakh) under direct central control, sparking panic across the region.
The report lists widespread human rights abuses, including mass arrests of political leaders, civil society members, and youth—often without charges. Many were detained under the controversial Public Safety Act (PSA) and transferred to prisons outside the region. There were also reports of torture, forced labour by the army, killings during protests, and denial of basic rights like health care, communication, and religious freedom. The press faced censorship, and journalists were harassed or detained. Even Indian opposition MPs were barred from visiting the region. FIDH presented this as a deepening humanitarian crisis, worsened by total media control and lack of legal accountability.
Contradiction to Pakistan’s Stance
Although the FIDH report strongly criticizes India’s actions in Kashmir, it does not fully align with Pakistan’s official position on the issue. First, while Pakistan sees the abrogation of Article 370 as an illegal annexation that violates international law and United Nations Security Council resolutions, FIDH focuses instead on how it violates India’s own constitutional and democratic norms. The report does not declare the move illegal under international law, nor does it support Pakistan’s demand for a UN-mandated plebiscite or referendum.
Second, the FIDH does not take a political position on the sovereignty of Kashmir. It does not say whether Kashmir should belong to India or Pakistan, or become independent. Its approach is purely humanitarian—aimed at documenting rights violations and demanding accountability from Indian authorities—without promoting any side’s territorial claims.
Third, while Pakistan often presents itself as the defender of Kashmiri rights, the FIDH report does not mention human rights issues in Pakistan-administered areas like Gilgit-Baltistan or Azad Jammu & Kashmir. This silence points to a one-sided focus, but also shows that the report does not fully endorse Pakistan’s broader narrative.
Lastly, unlike Pakistan, which regularly appeals to third parties like the UN, OIC, and foreign governments for political mediation, the FIDH does not recommend any external intervention. It limits itself to calling for the restoration of basic freedoms, access to justice, and the end of repression in the region.
Conclusion
Even if Pak President Dr. Alif Alvi quotes – “بھارت نے اسرائیل سے آبادی کا تناسب تبدیل کرنا سیکھا۔” (India has learnt to manipulate demographics from Israel), our country will always be less competent in disastrous manipulations (like posting game clips to show Indian aircrafts shot down) than his own homeland Pakistan. While human rights is a face of the abrogation that is controversial – the numerous violations of the same in the privileged times cannot be fathomed as well. However Pakistan tries to malign the image of the verdict, the verdict remains firm at its place – resistant to being swayed by any emotion that threatens national security.
