By T.M. Awan
Seven years have passed since India revoked Articles 370 and 35A on 5 August 2019, ending the special constitutional status of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir. At the time, New Delhi argued that the move would usher in peace, economic development, investment, and full integration with the rest of India. Today, however, a growing body of assessments by international observers, human rights organizations, and global think tanks presents a far more complex and troubling picture.
The central question is no longer whether the constitutional changes altered Kashmir’s legal status. Rather, it is whether they achieved the political, economic, and security objectives that were promised.
A recent ground report published by The Diplomat describes what it calls an “uneasy calm” in the Valley. The apparent decline in visible violence, the report argues, should not automatically be interpreted as lasting peace. Instead, it portrays a society where political space has narrowed, public dissent has become increasingly difficult, and many residents remain uncertain about their future. According to the report, unemployment in Jammu and Kashmir has risen well above India’s national average, leaving hundreds of thousands of young people searching for opportunities while economic expectations remain largely unmet.
Human rights concerns continue to dominate international assessments. United Nations human rights experts have repeatedly expressed concern over restrictions on freedom of expression, prolonged detentions, demolition of homes, property confiscations, and communication restrictions imposed in the territory. Their observations suggest that security measures adopted in recent years have raised important questions regarding proportionality, due process, and compliance with international human rights standards.
International think tanks have reached similar conclusions. Analysts at the International Crisis Group argue that while constitutional integration may have strengthened New Delhi’s administrative control, it has not resolved the deeper political dimensions of the Kashmir dispute. Instead, they warn that shrinking political space and the absence of meaningful dialogue risk creating long-term instability.
One development that has attracted particular attention is the continued demand by local political leaders for the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood and constitutional status. Even after elections under the new constitutional framework, calls for restoring the region’s previous political position have not disappeared. This suggests that constitutional change alone has not settled the political debate within the territory.
Another issue frequently highlighted by international observers concerns demographic change. Organizations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation have expressed concern over policies relating to domicile certificates, land ownership, and administrative restructuring. Critics argue that such measures could alter the demographic composition of the region, while Indian authorities maintain that these reforms are intended to promote development and equal opportunity. The differing interpretations continue to fuel international debate.
Economically, the promised transformation has yet to produce the level of results initially projected. Although the Indian government has highlighted increased infrastructure spending and tourism figures, independent observers note that unemployment, limited private investment, and persistent uncertainty continue to affect the local economy. Sustainable economic growth ultimately depends not only on infrastructure but also on political stability, investor confidence, and public trust.
Security also remains a complicated issue. While official figures point to improvements in certain security indicators, maintaining extensive security deployments has imposed significant financial and administrative costs. Periodic incidents of violence and renewed tensions along the Line of Control demonstrate that the broader dispute remains unresolved despite constitutional changes.
International attention has also gradually evolved. Parliamentary committees, policy institutes, and human rights organizations in Europe and elsewhere have increasingly raised questions regarding democratic freedoms, civil liberties, and governance in the region. Although many governments continue to balance these concerns against broader strategic and economic interests with India, Kashmir has remained part of international human rights discussions.
Perhaps the most important lesson after seven years is that constitutional decisions alone cannot resolve deeply rooted political conflicts. Durable peace requires political inclusion, public confidence, institutional legitimacy, and sustained dialogue. Security measures may reduce immediate violence, but they rarely eliminate the underlying grievances that fuel prolonged disputes.
For South Asia, the implications extend well beyond Kashmir itself. The unresolved dispute continues to shape relations between two nuclear-armed neighbours, affecting regional stability, economic integration, and broader geopolitical calculations. Lasting peace will require engagement that addresses both security concerns and the political aspirations of the people most directly affected.
The debate over Kashmir has therefore entered a new phase. It is no longer defined solely by constitutional arguments or diplomatic statements but increasingly by measurable outcomes: employment, governance, civil liberties, political participation, and public confidence. Seven years after the events of August 2019, global observers continue to ask whether the promises of peace and prosperity have been fulfilled. Their assessments suggest that while the constitutional landscape has changed, the fundamental political questions surrounding Kashmir remain unresolved.
The writer is a media and strategic communication professional and an international relations analyst. X: @TMAwanOfficial
————————————————-
*****
