Former IIOJK Official Criticizes Revocation of Article 370, Calls It Systematic Move to End Kashmir’s Special Status

Former Additional Secretary of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), Khawaja Farooq Kirmani, has described the abrogation of Article 370 as a calculated and structured move aimed at stripping Kashmir of its distinct constitutional position and absorbing it fully into India’s federal framework.

Speaking during an interview with a private television channel, Kirmani asserted that the unilateral decision to revoke Article 370 was not an isolated act but part of a long-term strategy to gradually undermine the region’s autonomy. According to him, administrative and political authority had already been steadily transferred to New Delhi well before the formal revocation, leaving local institutions increasingly weakened.

Kirmani also questioned the legitimacy of the Instrument of Accession, arguing that it did not meet the same legal and procedural standards as similar documents signed by other princely states at the time of partition. He pointed out the absence of an official state seal and raised concerns about what he described as irregularities in the documentation, including a contested handwritten date alongside Lord Mountbatten’s signature.

Reflecting on his own career, Kirmani said he eventually chose to leave the Indian Civil Service after observing what he considered excessive control by central agencies. During his tenure in the Power Development Department, he claimed that local officials were often compelled to implement policies that worked against the interests of the Kashmiri people.

He maintained that even before Article 370 was formally revoked in 2019, its substance had been diluted. Key administrative posts, including Deputy Commissioners and Superintendents of Police, were increasingly filled by non-local officers, effectively placing district-level governance in outside hands.

Drawing a comparison with Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Kirmani noted that administrative heads there are locals, and the region has its own elected President and Prime Minister, as well as an independent Supreme Court. In contrast, he said, the constitutional structure in IIOJK had been altered over time: the position of President was replaced by a centrally appointed Governor, the office of Prime Minister was abolished, and the region’s Supreme Court was reduced to a High Court.

He further claimed that the current political setup offers limited real authority to elected representatives, alleging that even the Chief Minister operates with constrained powers.

Kirmani also accused India of pursuing what he termed a “settler colonial agenda,” alleging that changes to domicile laws and the appointment of outsiders to senior positions were intended to shift the demographic composition of the Muslim-majority region. According to him, such measures could influence the outcome of any potential future plebiscite.

Additionally, he criticized the removal of official recognition for certain historical events and traditions, describing it as an attempt to reshape the region’s identity and downplay its disputed status.

Kirmani linked developments in IIOJK to broader concerns about Muslims across India. He argued that political dynamics in Kashmir often reflect regional power balances and suggested that the security and welfare of Indian Muslims are influenced by Pakistan’s relative strength in the region.