Kashmir has moved a long way from enjoying the pride of place in newly independent India to being regarded by many Indians as a bad penny, a state which wants to secede and start the process of breakup of the Indian Union. Little do they realise that Kashmir stands not as a problem but as a potential answer to the problems of the Union. For Art. 370 of the Indian Constitution, granting special status to Jammu and Kashmir state, is a sound and thoughtful example of an innovative political and constitutional mechanism geared to the social realities of India's plural and diverse polity. It has the seeds of an alternative model of state-making—a path that was not taken by the nationalist leadership of modern India.
The reluctance of the politicians to countenance autonomy as promised by Art. 370 was indeed why Kashmir is today perceived as a problem. At the same time, there can be no forgetting that the same lofty principle embedded in the article—providing autonomy to sub-identities—was not followed by the Muslim leadership of the Kashmir Valley with regard to the Hindu and Buddhist minorities of the state. Much as the Indian state has sought to impose its worldview on Kashmir, so did the Valley leadership try to force its idea among the sub-identities of the state. This had a crucial role to play in ensuring that the problem remained unresolved.
Back when the Constituent Assembly of newly independent India contemplated the federal Constitution, Art. 370 was devised to recognise the fact that Kashmir was 'different' and to give it political autonomy. Specifically, the provision guaranteed a special status whereby no provision of the Indian Constitution other than Article 1 (bringing it under the territorial jurisdiction of India) was made applicable to the state. The Indian Parliament could legislate only on the three subjects of defence, foreign affairs and communications, and Kashmir retained important cultural symbols, such as its own flag, political titles such as Wazir-i-Azam (Prime Minister, instead of Chief Minister) and Sadr-i-Riyasat instead of Governor. Jammu and Kashmir had its own Constituent Assembly to draw up a state constitution, and the special position was further cemented' by the Delhi Agreement of 1952, which vested residuary powers in the state, conferred special citizenship rights for the 'state-subjects', and abolished hereditary rulership.
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had clearly gone a long way in accommodating the sensitivities of Kashmiris by adapting the Indian Constitution to suit their special requirements. Why then did it not work, and why have they twice tried to break away from India? The answer will be found in the relationship between Art. 370 and the ideology of the Indian State, as well as in the realpolitik that lay behind the drafting of Art. 370.