1. National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
2. National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

*             Correspondence: sfan@nus.edu.sg

Keywords: Jammu and Kashmir, conflict, Article 370, Poverty

I. INTRODUCTION
The region of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) has long been a focal point of geopolitical contention, a legacy stemming directly from the 1947 partition of British India [1]. This historical event, driven by the “two-nation theory,” left Kashmir as an “unfinished agenda” and a persistent “stumbling block” in the bilateral relations between India and Pakistan. The conflict’s origins extend even further back to 1846, when the British rulers of India sold Kashmir to a Hindu Maharaja through the Treaty of Amritsar. The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, characterized by a Muslim majority population governed by a Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, faced a profound dilemma at the time of partition [2]. His decision to accede to India on October 26, 1947, through the Instrument of Accession, remains a highly contested act, particularly by Pakistan, which maintains that it did not reflect the will of the predominantly Muslim populace. This foundational dispute has since manifested in four wars between India and Pakistan over Kashmir (1948, 1965, 1971, and 1999), underscoring its enduring centrality to regional security and the persistent failure to achieve a peaceful resolution. The legacy of Partition continues to shape Kashmir’s political and historical trajectory [3]. Framing post-2019 developments as “completing the partition” challenges the long-standing view of Kashmir as an “unfinished agenda” of 1947. While this narrative implies finality, the historical context—anchored in the contested Instrument of Accession and decades of conflict—complicates such claims. Whether recent measures signify resolution or a reconfiguration of the dispute remains central to understanding the region’s evolving dynamics. Before 2019, Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional autonomy was defined by Article 370 and Article 35A, which granted legislative independence and exclusive rights to permanent residents. Though progressively diluted, these provisions remained a powerful symbol of Kashmiri identity. The divergence between India’s view of Article 370 as temporary and Kashmiris’ perception of it as a permanent safeguard created a fundamental political and psychological rift. Its abrogation was thus experienced less as a legal adjustment than as a rupture of a long-standing political compact. The decision of August 5, 2019, to revoke Article 370 and 35A and reorganize the state into two Union Territories marked a pivotal moment [4]. This move, accompanied by sweeping security measures and an unprecedented communication blackout, underscored its unilateral and coercive character. Far from fostering consensus, the abrogation intensified political alienation and deepened socio-psychological divisions. The notion of “completing the partition” after 2019 requires critical scrutiny. While the Indian state frames the abrogation as the final step in integrating Kashmir and consolidating sovereignty, the region’s complex history and geopolitical context challenge this claim. The conflict has not been resolved but reframed—from an internationally recognized territorial dispute to an internal governance and security issue. Persistent human rights concerns, political disenchantment, and unresolved aspirations underscore the limits of this narrative. Rather than achieving closure, the 2019 developments represent a unilateral redefinition of the conflict’s terms, revealing the enduring tension between legal integration and contested legitimacy [5].

2. THE ABROGATION AND REORGANIZATION: LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
The abrogation of Article 370 and the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019 constituted a monumental shift in India’s constitutional landscape concerning the region. This section meticulously examines the legal and procedural underpinnings of these changes, the subsequent judicial validation, and the various justifications and critiques that have shaped the discourse surrounding this pivotal event.
A. Process and Legal Basis of the Abrogation (Presidential Orders, J&K Reorganization Act)
The process of abrogating Article 370 and Article 35A commenced on August 5, 2019, through a series of Presidential Orders. Specifically, Constitutional Orders (CO) 272 and 273 were issued, effectively extending the entirety of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir, thereby rendering Article 370 inoperative and implicitly repealing Article 35A [6]. This executive action was swiftly followed by legislative measures. Concurrently with the Presidential Orders, the Indian Parliament enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. This Act formally bifurcated the erstwhile state into two new Union Territories: Jammu & Kashmir, which was designated with its own legislative assembly, and Ladakh, which was to be administered directly by a Lieutenant Governor without a legislature. This structural change brought both territories under the direct oversight of the central government. A crucial procedural step in this process involved an amendment to Article 367 of the Indian Constitution, which is an interpretation clause [7]. This amendment effectively replaced the term “Constituent Assembly” with “Legislative Assembly”. This alteration was critical because Article 370(3) stipulated that the special status could not be amended or repealed without the recommendation of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly. Since the J&K Constituent Assembly had dissolved in 1957, making any changes to Article 370 “nearly impossible”, the government leveraged the fact that J&K was under Governor’s rule at the time. By amending Article 367, the Governor, acting on behalf of the state, could provide the necessary “recommendation” to the President for the abrogation. This intricate legal step, described as “rendering inoperative” or “superseding” Article 370 via presidential orders, highlights a strategic legal maneuver designed to bypass the requirement of the erstwhile J&K Constituent Assembly’s recommendation. This raises significant questions about the democratic legitimacy of the process, even though it was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The detailed procedural analysis reveals a deliberate, complex legal strategy employed to overcome a constitutional deadlock, which critics have characterized as “fraudulent” or “unconstitutional” [8].

B. Judicial Scrutiny: The Supreme Court’s Verdict on Article 370
Nearly four and a half years after the abrogation, on December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a unanimous verdict upholding the constitutional validity of the abrogation of Article 370 and the subsequent reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir. The five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, ruled that Article 370 was always a “temporary provision” with the ultimate goal of achieving the complete integration of Kashmir into India [9]. The Court further asserted that there were no limitations on the President’s power to abrogate the article, directly addressing the petitioners’ argument that the President could not act without the permission of the J&K Constituent Assembly. The judges affirmed that the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was “null and void,” having been effectively replaced by the Indian Constitution. Additionally, the court set a deadline of September 30, 2024, for the Election Commission of India to conduct assembly elections in the newly formed Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court’s retrospective validation of the abrogation, particularly its emphasis on Article 370’s “temporary” nature and the President’s broad powers, consolidates the legal integration of J&K into India. This judicial pronouncement provides a strong legal basis for the government’s actions. However, by not explicitly addressing how the procedural circumvention of the Constituent Assembly’s role was reconciled with constitutional norms, the verdict might be perceived by some as prioritizing executive action and national integration over the spirit of federalism and local consent. This could potentially deepen the sense of alienation among those who viewed Article 370 as a foundational promise of autonomy. Critics, including legal scholars, have pointed to “errors” in the Supreme Court’s judgment regarding the dilution of Article 370 and the reorganization. This suggests that while the legal outcome is settled, the fundamental disagreements about the fairness and democratic propriety of the abrogation persist. The “completion” is therefore a legal one, but its broader acceptance as a just or democratically sound process remains highly contested [10].

C. Government’s Rationale for the Abrogation
The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government presented the abrogation of Article 370 as a “historic decision” and a fulfillment of a key electoral promise. The government’s justification for this monumental step was multi-faceted, encompassing arguments related to integration, economic development, national security, and social justice. Key justifications included the assertion that Article 370 impeded the full integration of Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Union, leading to a sense of secession and hindering the region’s overall growth [11]. The abrogation was presented as a means to foster peace and development, attracting investment and boosting local industries by removing perceived barriers to external capital and enterprise. From a national security perspective, it was argued that Article 370 had been exploited to bolster terrorism and promote separatism, thereby compromising national security. The abrogation aimed to enhance national security by granting the Indian government greater authority and enabling stricter measures against terrorist operations. Furthermore, the government claimed that Article 370, particularly Article 35A, fostered discriminatory practices against women, Dalits, and other marginalized communities in Jammu and Kashmir [12]. The abrogation was intended to subject them to Indian laws and grant them equal rights and privileges, thereby eliminating such discrimination. Finally, the government argued that Article 370 resulted in a lack of transparency and accountability in J&K’s administration, and its removal would bring the region under the jurisdiction of central oversight mechanisms like the Central Vigilance Commission and the Right to Information Act, leading to enhanced governance. The government’s multi-pronged rationale for abrogation, encompassing security, economic development, and social justice, positions the move as a comprehensive solution to Kashmir’s long-standing issues. This narrative aims to legitimize the unilateral action by framing it as a necessary step for the region’s progress and integration, thereby attempting to “complete” its status within the Indian Union. By shifting the discourse from a constitutional debate to one of developmental progress and security, the government strategically sought to gain broader public acceptance, both domestically and internationally, for a controversial decision [14].

D. Critiques and Constitutional Debates
Despite the government’s justifications and the Supreme Court’s eventual validation, the abrogation of Article 370 faced strong and persistent critiques from various quarters, including constitutional scholars, opposition political leaders, and civil society organizations. Critics termed the abrogation “utterly and palpably unconstitutional,” an “arbitrary misuse of state power,” and even a “murder of democracy”. Arguments against the abrogation primarily centered on the President’s perceived lack of power to unilaterally abrogate Article 370 without the explicit recommendation of the J&K Constituent Assembly, which had long been dissolved [13]. Critics contended that the procedural changes, particularly the amendment to Article 367, were unconstitutional and undermined the foundational principles of federalism that Article 370 was designed to uphold. Concerns were also vociferously raised about the mass detention of Kashmiri political leaders and the extensive communication blackout that immediately followed the abrogation, with many condemning these actions as “unconstitutional & undemocratic”. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, for instance, criticized the government, stating he was “not proud as an Indian” and calling the detention of Kashmiri political leaders “a classical colonial excuse”. The persistence of strong critiques despite the Supreme Court’s verdict indicates that the legal “completion” of Kashmir’s integration into India has not resolved the underlying political and moral questions surrounding the process. While the legal battle may be over, the debate over democratic norms, federal principles, and the rights of self-determination continues to challenge the legitimacy of the “completed partition” narrative [15]. The strong condemnations from Indian opposition leaders, characterizing the move as a “murder of democracy,” underscore that the legal validation has not extinguished the fundamental disagreements about the fairness and democratic propriety of the abrogation. This perpetuates a deeper, non-legal “partition” in terms of political legitimacy and public trust, as a significant segment of the population and political spectrum continues to view the process as fundamentally flawed [16].

3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
The abrogation of Article 370 was accompanied by significant promises of economic transformation and accelerated development in Jammu and Kashmir. This section critically assesses the socio-economic impacts of the post-2019 changes, presenting both the government’s optimistic reports and independent analyses that highlight persistent challenges and disparities.
A. Economic Growth, Investment, and Industrial Development
Official government reports and economic surveys paint a largely positive picture of J&K’s economic trajectory post-2019. The J&K economy is projected to grow at 7.06% in 2024-25, with its real Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) estimated at ₹1.45 lakh crore. The economic survey also indicates a compound annual growth rate of 4.89% in real GSDP from 2019-20 to 2024-25, surpassing the previous period’s growth. Regarding investment, the government reported that ₹10,516 crore has been invested in the Union Territory since 2019-20 [17]. Furthermore, investment proposals worth ₹1.63 lakh crores have been received, holding the potential to generate over 5.9 lakh jobs. Approximately 1,984 industrial units, with investments totaling ₹9,606 crore, have reportedly become operational between 2019 and December 2024, creating 63,710 jobs. Handicraft exports have also reportedly doubled to ₹1162 crore in 2023-24 from ₹563 crore in 2021-22. However, while official figures present a positive outlook on economic growth and investment proposals, independent analyses reveal a significant gap between these promises and their actual realization on the ground. A report by the Forum for Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir found that Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) growth dropped to 8.73% after 2019, a decline from 13.28% between 2015 and 2019. Critically, as of late 2023, only around ₹2,000–2,500 crore had been “grounded” – meaning investment that had actually started taking shape in the form of land allocation, construction, or setup [18]. This represents less than 5% of the claimed proposals. Further analysis indicates that ₹15,000 crore worth of investment proposals were stalled by late 2024 due to delays in releasing incentives under the New Central Sector Scheme (NCSS). Concerns have also been raised by industrialists in Jammu regarding issues such as water supply, corruption in allotment processes, and a lack of skilled manpower. This significant disparity between proposals and actualized investments suggests that the economic “completion” is more aspirational than realized on the ground, indicating a potential disconnect between policy intent and ground-level implementation [19].

B. Tourism Sector: Revival and Challenges
The tourism sector, a vital revenue source for Jammu and Kashmir, has shown signs of significant revival post-2019. Official reports indicate that tourism arrivals soared to an all-time high of 2.36 crore in 2024.This figure includes a substantial number of foreign tourists (0.65 lakh), Amarnath pilgrims (5.12 lakh), and Shri Mata Vaishno Devi pilgrims (94.56 lakh) [20]. This surge is widely seen as a positive influence on the region’s tourism industry, with improvements noted in infrastructure and security. The government has also encouraged homestays to accommodate more visitors and generate employment. Despite this reported resurgence, the sector faced severe setbacks immediately following the abrogation [21]. The extensive communication blackouts and curfews imposed in August 2019 led to a dramatic decline in tourist arrivals, significantly disrupting this vital revenue source. While numbers have since recovered, the initial severe setback due to communication blackouts and ongoing political unrest indicate that this revival is sensitive to the broader security environment. Challenges such as persistent political unrest and environmental issues continue to exist. This suggests that while tourism numbers have rebounded, the sector remains vulnerable to the broader security and political climate, and its recovery may not fully address the economic challenges faced by all segments of the population. The “completion” in tourism is thus a rebound, but one that is still navigating underlying instabilities and past disruptions.

C. Employment and Livelihood Opportunities
Official government data suggests an improvement in the employment landscape. The unemployment rate in Jammu and Kashmir reportedly dipped from 6.7% in 2019-20 to 6.1% in 2023-24. This improvement is also reflected in the labor force participation rate and workers population ratio, which reportedly rose to 64.3% and 60.4% respectively in 2023-24, showcasing enhanced employment opportunities [22]. The government has also highlighted the generation of 9.58 lakh self-employment opportunities through various schemes over the last four years, alongside 11,526 selections made by the J&K Public Service Commission and J&K Services Selection Board in the past two years. However, this positive narrative is contradicted by independent data concerning youth unemployment. According to CMIE data from early 2024, J&K continues to have one of the highest youth unemployment rates in India, exceeding 20%. This indicates that a large portion of the potential workforce remains untrained or unemployable in the sectors where investment is being planned. The persistence of high youth unemployment, despite official claims of declining overall unemployment and job creation, suggests that new economic opportunities may not be equitably distributed or are insufficient to absorb the local workforce. This discrepancy could potentially exacerbate social grievances and discontent, undermining the government’s claims of economic “completion.” The issue extends beyond mere numbers to encompass who benefits from these changes and the quality of employment generated, which remains a critical factor in determining the success of integration efforts [23].

D. Poverty Alleviation and Infrastructure Development
Significant progress has been reported in poverty alleviation in Jammu and Kashmir. According to NITI Aayog reports, the percentage of people living below the poverty line in J&K decreased substantially to 2.81% in 2022-23, down from 4.80% in 2019-21, and a more significant reduction from 12.56% in 2015-16. The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) also showed a notable reduction, with the headcount ratio declining from 12.56% to 4.80% between 2015-16 and 2019-21. This progress is attributed to targeted interventions by the Rural Development Department, focusing on health, education, and standard of living indicators [24]. In parallel, substantial investments have been made in infrastructure development across the region. This includes the construction of new roads, bridges, tunnels, and improvements in electricity lines. The reported decline in poverty and the ongoing infrastructure development, if sustained, could address long-standing developmental deficits in the region, contributing to a sense of material “completion” or improvement in living standards. However, these gains need to be contextualized against the backdrop of reduced autonomy and the potential for demographic shifts, which might overshadow the perceived economic benefits for some segments of the population. While economic improvements are tangible, their impact on the broader sense of well-being and identity, especially for those who feel a loss of unique status, remains a complex consideration [25].

E. Economic Disparities and Structural Issues
Despite the optimistic reports of economic revival and investment, independent analyses highlight the persistence of deep-seated structural economic challenges in Jammu and Kashmir. A report by the Forum for Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir indicated that the Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) growth actually dropped to 8.73% after 2019, a decrease from 13.28% between 2015 and 2019.Furthermore, public debt in the region rose to ₹1.12 lakh crore in 2022-23, and central assistance to J&K was reportedly cut in the 2025-26 Union Budget. The economy continues to exhibit a structural reliance on government spending rather than self-sustaining growth [2,4]. There is a notable slow execution of investment proposals and persistent bureaucratic inertia, as evidenced by stalled projects and concerns raised by local industry bodies. Key sectors with high comparative advantages, such as horticulture (apples, walnuts, saffron) and handwoven goods (like Pashmina), as well as food processing, are reportedly not receiving the necessary policy focus and sector-specific revival packages. This suggests that the economic integration post-2019 is not a seamless process but faces deep-seated issues that require more than policy changes; it demands fundamental governance reforms and targeted sectoral development that have yet to fully materialize [11,9]. The persistence of these structural economic challenges indicates that a true economic “completion” remains elusive, potentially leading to continued economic frustration and undermining the broader integration narrative.

Table 01: Key Socio-Economic Indicators in Jammu and Kashmir (2019-2024)

4. HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES LANDSCAPE
The period following the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019 has been marked by significant changes in the human rights and civil liberties landscape of Jammu and Kashmir. Reports from various human rights organizations and academic studies highlight a complex situation characterized by extensive restrictions, the pervasive use of special laws, and a noticeable impact on the region’s civil society and the identity of its people.

A. Restrictions on Communication, Movement, and Assembly
Immediately following the abrogation, the Indian government imposed extensive curfews, widespread communication blackouts, and severe restrictions on movement across Jammu and Kashmir. These measures were explicitly aimed at preventing unrest [2,1,8]. The communication blockade was particularly severe and prolonged, including the longest internet shutdown recorded globally, lasting for 552 days. Thousands of security personnel were deployed, effectively placing the Kashmir Valley under a strict lockdown with a complete communications power outage. These prolonged and extensive communication blackouts and movement restrictions were not merely security measures but functioned as instruments of control that significantly curtailed fundamental freedoms [2,9]. Their impact extended beyond political dissent, severely affecting livelihoods, particularly in the tourism-dependent Kashmir Valley, and hindering access to essential services and education, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The duration and scope of these restrictions suggest a deliberate strategy to manage information flow and suppress collective action. This indicates that the state prioritized maintaining order through control over individual freedoms and economic well-being, highlighting a trade-off that is central to understanding the human rights narrative in J&K post-2019 [7,22].

B. Freedom of Press and Expression: Challenges and Crackdowns
The post-2019 period has witnessed an “unparalleled” crackdown on press freedom in Jammu and Kashmir. Numerous journalists have been arrested under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), a counter-terrorism law [21,9]. This has been exacerbated by a new media policy introduced in J&K, which empowers authorities to unilaterally decide what constitutes “fake news, plagiarism and unethical or anti-national activities,” leading to punitive actions against media outlets, journalists, and editors. This systematic suppression of press freedom and independent voices, coupled with the use of stringent laws, suggests an attempt to control the narrative surrounding post-2019 Kashmir [9,7]. Reports indicate that these measures have led to “self-censorship of independent voices” and have given Indian authorities “near total control over information from Jammu and Kashmir”. This creates an information vacuum that hinders independent assessment of the situation on the ground and reinforces the government’s “completion” narrative, while effectively silencing dissenting perspectives. The consequence is a deepening of the psychological “partition” for those whose stories remain untold, as the state actively shapes the public discourse [9,11].

C. Use of Draconian Laws (UAPA, PSA) and Arbitrary Detentions
The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Public Safety Act (PSA) have been extensively and pervasively used in Jammu and Kashmir since 2019 [12]. These laws enable the state to designate individuals as ‘terrorists’ without producing incriminating evidence, leading to prolonged detention without trial. The strict requirements for bail under UAPA have resulted in individuals spending months, and often many years, in jail without a guilty verdict. Notably, arrests under UAPA increased by 37% in 2019 compared to the previous year [23]. Following the abrogation, thousands of residents, including prominent local political leaders, were detained. The pervasive use of stringent anti-terror laws for arbitrary detentions and the suppression of dissent points to a discernible shift towards a securitized governance model in J&K. While the government frames these measures as necessary for national security and counter-terrorism, human rights reports consistently emphasize their detrimental impact on civil liberties and the potential for abuse. This creates a tension where security is prioritized over fundamental rights. This approach risks alienating the local population further by eroding trust in legal processes and democratic institutions, potentially hindering genuine integration. The “completion” in this context appears to be achieved through a tightening of state control, which may not translate to genuine peace or acceptance among the populace [11].

D. Allegations of Human Rights Abuses and Accountability Concerns
Reports from reputable human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, continue to detail systematic abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. These allegations include extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture, and sexual violence [23]. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) remains a significant concern, as it provides effective immunity from prosecution to security forces, thereby hindering accountability for alleged abuses. The use of pellet guns by security forces for crowd control, which has resulted in hundreds of cases of blindness and other serious injuries, continues to be highlighted as a violation of international humanitarian law. The persistent allegations of human rights abuses and the lack of accountability, despite government claims of improved security, suggest a “negative peace” characterized by suppression rather than genuine reconciliation [11]. While the government asserts a decline in violence and improved security, the continued reports of abuses and the immunity granted to security forces indicate that security is prioritized over justice. This undermines the narrative of a “completed partition” leading to prosperity, instead fostering resentment and potentially fueling future cycles of conflict by failing to address deep-seated grievances. If stability is achieved through repression and impunity, it represents a superficial peace that does not address the root causes of conflict or win the “hearts and minds” of the people [24].

5. SECURITY DYNAMICS AND COUNTER-INSURGENCY
The security landscape in Jammu and Kashmir has undergone notable shifts since the abrogation of Article 370, marked by both claimed improvements in stability and persistent underlying challenges. This section examines the trends in violence, the impact of continued militarization, the government’s counter-insurgency strategies, and the enduring cross-border dynamics that shape the region’s security environment [22].

A. Trends in Violence, Militancy, and Cross-Border Terrorism
The Indian government has consistently asserted a significant decline in violence and militancy in Jammu and Kashmir post-2019. Official statements claim that terrorist attacks have reduced by over 50% and that street violence has “become a thing of the past”. Data on civilian deaths reportedly shows a visible decline, particularly after 2020, with some districts nearing zero deaths by 2024 [11,6]. These trends are presented as indicators of improved security and effective counter-insurgency efforts. However, independent analyses and human rights reports suggest that this peace is “fragile and uneven,” with the persistence of isolated attacks highlighting a “continued threat of militancy”. An upsurge in violence was reported in July 2024, indicating that the situation remains dynamic [22]. While there has been a statistical decline in large-scale violence, the continued presence of isolated attacks and the description of peace as “fragile and uneven” suggest that the security “completion” is not absolute. Instead, it might represent a shift from overt insurgency to a more latent or targeted form of militancy, requiring sustained vigilance and indicating that the underlying drivers of conflict are not fully resolved. Cross-border terrorism, with groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) operating from Pakistan, remains a significant and complicating challenge [8,11].

B. Militarization and its Societal and Psychological Impacts
Despite claims of reduced violence, Kashmir remains one of the most heavily militarized zones globally, with tens of thousands of Indian troops, paramilitary forces, and police personnel deployed across the region. This pervasive military presence has had profound and multifaceted consequences on the daily lives of Kashmiris. This heavy militarization has fostered a “pervasive sense of alienation and resentment” among the local population. Frequent cordon and search operations, numerous checkpoints, and intermittent curfews disrupt daily life, contributing to a “climate of fear and uncertainty”. The psychological impact of prolonged exposure to violence and living in such a heavily militarized society cannot be understated [23]. It has led to unique mental health problems that have become deeply ingrained in Kashmiri society, affecting individuals and communities across generations. The continued heavy militarization, even with reported declines in large-scale violence, suggests that the state’s approach to “completing” security relies predominantly on force rather than genuine reconciliation. This creates a paradox where physical security gains may come at the significant cost of the psychological well-being and trust of the populace, potentially reinforcing a sense of internal “partition” between the state and its citizens [11].

C. Government’s Security Strategy and its Effectiveness
The Indian government’s security strategy in Jammu and Kashmir has primarily focused on “kinetically degrading militant organizations” and enhancing security measures. The abrogation of Article 370 was explicitly justified as a means to grant the Indian government “greater authority and enabling stricter measures against terrorist operations”. The government’s narrative emphasizes that this approach has led to improved security and effective counter-insurgency efforts [12]. However, the government’s emphasis on a kinetic, security-first strategy, while showing some success in reducing large-scale violence, may be insufficient for achieving lasting peace. While there are reports of improved security, the persistence of isolated attacks and the fragile nature of peace suggest that this decline must be interpreted with caution. Without complementary political engagement aimed at addressing long-standing local grievances, this approach risks creating a “negative peace” where underlying discontent persists, potentially fueling future cycles of low-intensity conflict and challenging the long-term stability of the “completed partition”. A purely security-driven “completion” is likely to be superficial and unsustainable, as it neglects the socio-political dimensions of the conflict [23].

D. Persistent Security Challenges and Fragile Peace
Despite the government’s efforts and claims of improved security, the security environment in Jammu and Kashmir remains precarious, and complete peace continues to be elusive. The cross-border dynamics, particularly Pakistan’s alleged persistent intervention and support for militancy, continue to significantly complicate the situation [8,9,10]. The abrogation of Article 370 has further exacerbated tensions between India and Pakistan, leading to increased violations of the ceasefire and negatively impacting the possibilities for dialogue. The ongoing cross-border tensions and the “fragile” nature of peace suggest that the security dimension of “completing the partition” is inherently linked to the broader India-Pakistan relations. Without a comprehensive resolution of the Kashmir dispute between these two nuclear powers, internal security gains in J&K might remain vulnerable to external destabilizing factors. This implies that a true and lasting “completion” of the region’s status, particularly in terms of security, cannot be achieved solely through internal measures but requires addressing the regional “partition” that remains far from complete [23].

6. REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSES
The abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019 elicited a wide spectrum of reactions from key regional and international actors, highlighting the complex geopolitical implications of India’s unilateral action and the differing perspectives on Kashmir’s status.

A. Pakistan’s Official Stance and Bilateral Relations with India
Pakistan reacted “furiously” and with “outright hostility” to the abrogation of Article 370. Islamabad accused India of “aggression against the UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir” and “brutality against the Kashmiri population”. In immediate response, Pakistan downgraded diplomatic ties with India, expelled the Indian High Commissioner, and suspended bilateral trade relations [22]. Pakistan’s opposition is rooted in its long-standing historical position that Jammu and Kashmir, as a Muslim-majority territory, should have acceded to Pakistan during the 1947 partition. Pakistan views the abrogation as a direct breach of United Nations resolutions on Kashmir, which call for self-determination, and as an attempt by India to unilaterally change the region’s demographic composition. Political leaders in Pakistan, including then-Prime Minister Imran Khan, denounced the action as a “blatant military aggression” and compared the situation to “ethnic cleansing,” claiming widespread human rights abuses in the Kashmir Valley. Pakistan consistently advocates for the right of Kashmiris to self-determination in accordance with UN resolutions [10]. Pakistan’s strong condemnation and diplomatic retaliation underscore that for Islamabad; the abrogation of Article 370 did not “complete” Kashmir’s status. Instead, it exacerbated the dispute, transforming Kashmir from a semi-autonomous region within India into a fully integrated territory, which Pakistan views as an illegal annexation and a violation of international law. This reinforces the “partition” at the bilateral level, making dialogue and resolution even more challenging.

B. United Nations’ Engagement and Human Rights Monitoring
The United Nations has a long history of engagement with the Kashmir dispute, dating back to the 1947-48 conflict. The UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions on Kashmir, most notably Resolution 47 (1948), which called for a ceasefire and a plebiscite to allow the people of Kashmir to decide their future. Subsequent resolutions, including 51 (1948), 80 (1950), and 91 (1951), reaffirmed the necessity of a plebiscite, while Resolution 122 (1957) explicitly declared that any attempt by India to unilaterally determine Kashmir’s status was invalid [8,11]. Despite India’s assertion that the abrogation of Article 370 is an “internal affair”, the UN’s consistent calls for self-determination and its human rights monitoring indicate that the international community, particularly its human rights mechanisms, does not consider the “partition” of Kashmir “completed” by unilateral action. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has released reports (in 2018 and 2019) highlighting serious human rights violations in both Indian-Administered Kashmir and Pakistan-Administered Kashmir, including excessive use of force, arbitrary detention, impunity for violations, restrictions on freedom of expression and association, discrimination, and the misuse of anti-terror laws [2]. The UN has consistently urged a peaceful resolution and dialogue between India and Pakistan. Furthermore, some non-governmental organizations have argued that the abrogation of Article 370 violated UN resolutions and the 4th Geneva Convention. This continued international scrutiny challenges India’s claims of complete sovereignty over the territory’s status, maintaining an international dimension to the dispute [11].

C. Perspectives of Kashmiri Political Groups and Civil Society Organizations
The abrogation of Article 370 elicited deeply divided reactions within Kashmir itself, reflecting a complex interplay of hope, fear, and political aspirations. For some Kashmiri political groups, the decision was viewed as a necessary step towards unity and integration with the Indian Union [2,3,19]. Nationalist parties, such as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and certain sections of the population in Jammu, perceived the abrogation and the upcoming elections as opportunities for development and enhanced representation within the Indian federal structure. Conversely, many Kashmiris perceived the revocation as a profound “assault on their national identity” [22]. This sentiment was exacerbated by the widespread detention of Kashmiri political leaders immediately following the abrogation. The self-determination movement, propelled by a collective memory and hope for “azadi” (liberation), continues to exist, with Kashmiri youth emerging as significant political actors actively participating in protests and discursive battles. Separatist groups, though no longer monolithic, might adopt diverse strategies, ranging from boycotts and non-violent protests to renewed militancy, depending on the perceived legitimacy and fairness of the upcoming elections [23]. The deep division within Kashmir itself, between those who view the abrogation as an opportunity and those who see it as an assault on identity and autonomy, indicates that the “completion of partition” has not fostered internal unity. Instead, it has deepened existing ideological and political “partitions” within the Kashmiri population. This internal schism means that the “completion” is not a unifying event for the Kashmiri people but rather a polarizing one, creating a new layer of internal “partition” that will continue to shape the region’s political future and pose a significant challenge to long-term stability and democratic governance [22].

6. CONCLUSION
The developments in Kashmir after August 2019 signify a pivotal transformation in the region’s constitutional and geopolitical trajectory. The abrogation of Article 370 and the conversion of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territories marked a decisive legal and administrative integration into the Indian Union, fulfilling a long-standing objective of consolidating central authority. Yet, this formal integration has been accompanied by widening political, psychological, and geopolitical divides. Human rights concerns, prolonged communication blackouts, restrictions on civil liberties, and intensified security measures have deepened alienation and eroded trust. While official narratives emphasize increased investment and development, persistent structural inequalities, unmet economic promises, and high unemployment continue to undermine public confidence. Geopolitically, the move has heightened tensions with Pakistan, increased regional volatility, and attracted external strategic attention, complicating the path to durable stability. Kashmir’s transition thus embodies a paradox in which legal unification coexists with fragmented social and political realities. Persistent grievances, allegations of human rights violations, and constrained democratic space remain formidable barriers to peace. Socioeconomic disparities and ongoing cross-border tensions further exacerbate insecurity. Nonetheless, opportunities for reconciliation and stabilization exist. Equitable and tangible economic development could foster livelihoods and reduce discontent, while the Supreme Court–mandated assembly elections by September 2024 offer a potential entry point for political engagement and democratic renewal. A shift from a security-dominant approach to one grounded in inclusive governance, rights protection, and political dialogue could transform the region’s fragile “negative peace” into a sustainable, participatory framework. The future of Kashmir hinges on the interplay between New Delhi’s integration strategy and the aspirations of its people. Electoral participation may offer a platform to address political concerns through representative mechanisms. However, the absence of a clear timeline for restoring statehood sustains uncertainty, while persistent separatist sentiment and potential strategic responses from dissenting groups pose destabilizing risks. If forthcoming political processes are viewed as superficial rather than substantive, they may erode legitimacy and embolden opposition movements. Ultimately, the events since 2019 illustrate that legal and administrative measures alone cannot resolve the Kashmir question. A durable and inclusive resolution requires a multidimensional approach—addressing human rights, fostering trust, expanding democratic participation, and encouraging reconciliation both within the Union and across borders. Only by integrating political, economic, and social dimensions can sustainable stability and meaningful integration be achieved.

REFERENCES

1. Menski, W., & Yousuf, M. (2025). Concluding Analysis—Post-2019 Kashmir: Completing the Partition and Facing New Challenges. In Kashmir after 2019(pp. 256-276). Routledge India.
2. Hussain, S. (2021). Kashmir in the Aftermath of Partition. Cambridge University Press.
3. Padder, S., & Shah, A. G. (2024). The Legacy of India’s Partition: A Story of Violence and Migration in Jammu & Kashmir. In Migration, Memories, and the” Unfinished” Partition(pp. 170-188). Routledge India.
4. Kuszewska, A. (2022). Kashmir before and after partition. In Kashmir in India and Pakistan Policies(pp. 9-25). Routledge.
5. Babar, B. A. (2023). Re-Annexation of Indian Occupied Kashmir: Challenges and Options for Pakistan. Journal of Public Policy Practitioners, 2(1), 62-97.
6. Shah, N. A. (2022). Re-colonisation of Jammu and Kashmir and the Right to Self-determination. International Human Rights Law Review, 11(2), 186-220.
7. Aziz, K. Z., ur Rashid, A., & Iqbal, N. (2021). Kashmir Conflict: Proposed Resolutions and Formulas 1947-57. The Journal of Political Science (JPS), 39(1), 107-122.
8. Ayub, S. J. (2025). Breaking the Myth of the Accession of Jammu and Kashmir. In Kashmir after 2019(pp. 125-143). Routledge India.
9. Sharma, M. (2022). Nodes of Marginality: Identity, Displacement and Migration in the Post-Partition Borderlands of Kashmir. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 20(4), 486-500.
10. Majid, I. (2024). Integrating Kashmir: Modernity, Development and Sedimented Narratives: Kashmir in the Aftermath of Partition (By Shahla Hussain) & Colonizing Kashmir: State-Building Under Indian Occupation (By Hafsa Kanjwal). American Journal of Islam and Society, 41(3-4), 86-100.
11. Sharma, M. (2025). The ongoing partition: narratives of belonging and separation in the borderland of Kargil, Ladakh. Asian Ethnicity, 1-22.
12. Hussain, Z. (2024). Book review: Werner Menski and Muneeb Yousuf (Eds), Kashmir after 2019: Completing the Partition.
13. Ali, N. (2022). Kashmir under Modi’s new India’. Taylan Kenar. s infinity to minus infinity, 313.
14. Snedden, C. (2021). The significance of Kashmir and Kashmiri identity in J&K. In Independent Kashmir(pp. 93-136). Manchester University Press.
15. Snedden, C. (2021). The significance of Kashmir and Kashmiri identity in J&K. In Independent Kashmir(pp. 93-136). Manchester University Press.
16. Mir, B. A. (2025). Kashmiri Pandits: Socio-Political Dynamics, Displacement, and Pathways to Return. India Review, 24(2), 131-161.
17. Ali, R., & Mustafa, U. (2021). Kashmir dispute: Emerging complexities after abrogation of Article 370. Journal of Humanities, Social and Management Sciences (JHSMS), 2(2), 13-25.
18. Hussain, S. (2025). A Forced Union: Exploring the Consequences of India’s Removal of Jammu and Kashmir’s Special Status. Nations and Nationalism.
19. Sohal, A. (2025). Introduction: The Laboratory of Kashmir. Global Intellectual History, 1-11.
20. Bhat, J. I., & Bhat, I. H. (2023). Caught in a Time Warp: The Fate of the West Pakistan Refugees in Jammu and Kashmir. In Regional perspectives on India’s Partition(pp. 152-167). Routledge.
21. Fair, C. (2023). India’s move in Kashmir: Unpacking the domestic and international motivations and implications. Lawfare.
22. Bazaz, A. (2021). Editor’s Introduction: KASHMIR A Potential Global Crisis. Education About ASIA, 26(2).
23. Dar, R., & Tillin, L. (2025). An Incomplete Bargain: Reading Indian Federalism through the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly. Asian Survey, 65(3), 403-428.
24. Sultan, S. (2022). The obscure Kashmiris in the Kashmir conflict: Analysing the 1990 Kashmiri refugees. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 9(1), 2049481.
25. Qadri, N. (2022). Accession to Annexation: A coercive legal measure in UN-Recognized Disputed territory of Jammu & Kashmir. Available at SSRN 4206242.