Article 370 and J&K statehood · GS-II
PoK has had seats reserved for refugees for years. Why are tensions boiling over now? ↗
Consider the following statements regarding India's constitutional and political position on the Kashmir dispute and the status of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK):
- India has reserved seats in the Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir (and subsequently its Union Territory) for people living in Pakistan-occupied territories, but these seats are kept vacant.
- The revocation of Article 370 in 2019 altered the constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir by bifurcating it into two Union Territories, while simultaneously extinguishing India's sovereign claim over Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
Statement 1 is correct. India has consistently maintained its sovereign claim over the entire erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, including the portions under Pakistani control. This is reflected in the fact that the J&K Assembly (and later the legislative assembly of the Union Territory) has seats reserved for representatives of Pakistan-occupied territories — a symbolic assertion of India's position — though these seats are kept vacant as elections cannot be held there. Statement 2 is incorrect. The revocation of Article 370 in August 2019, effected through a Presidential Order and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, reorganised the state into two Union Territories (Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh). However, this reorganisation did not in any way extinguish or qualify India's sovereign claim over Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. India's official position continues to be that PoK is an integral part of India illegally occupied by Pakistan, and this position remained unchanged — and indeed was reaffirmed in Parliamentary debates — following the 2019 revocation.