SRINAGAR, Jammu and Kashmir — The Indian Supreme Court’s decision this week to uphold the government’s revocation of special status for the disputed Jammu and Kashmir region has stirred anger and bitter memories among locals while irking the country’s biggest geopolitical rivals, Pakistan and China.

The court on Monday ruled against more than 20 petitions challenging the 2019 decision by the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to revoke Article 370 of the constitution, which had afforded the territory a degree of autonomy. The court unanimously agreed that the special status had been a “temporary provision” and was an “interim arrangement in war conditions.”

The judges also set a deadline of Sept. 30 next year for local elections to be held and asked the central government to restore the “statehood” of the valley.

Modi hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling as a “beacon of hope, a promise of a brighter future and a testament to our collective resolve to build a stronger, more united India.”

But since independence from Britain, Kashmir has been at the heart of the feud between India and Pakistan. Islamabad rejected the verdict as meaningless, arguing that international law does not acknowledge New Delhi’s unilateral move to bring the region under central government control in 2019.

China, which holds a sparsely populated area in the north, called for efforts to resolve the lingering dispute between the nuclear-armed neighbors. “This is a dispute left from the past between India and Pakistan and it should be properly addressed through peaceful means, according to the U.N. charter, United Nations Security Council resolutions and relevant bilateral agreements,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said.

A lawyer peers into his phone outside India’s Supreme Court in New Delhi on Dec. 11.   © Reuters

In Kashmir itself — India’s only Muslim-majority region — many saw the ruling as a disappointment, albeit one they anticipated.

Mehbooba Mufti, a former chief minister of the then-state who was detained in 2019, said the decision was an “unjust, illegal and unconstitutional act of the Indian government in the Parliament.” She argued that “by terming Article 370 temporary, India has been weakened.”

Mufti, along with another former chief minister, Omar Abdullah, claimed to have been placed under de facto house arrest around the time of the court’s decision — apparently in an attempt to prevent them from stoking unrest. Local police denied restricting their movements.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, a Kashmiri separatist leader, told Nikkei Asia that the judgment was sad but “not unexpected.”

“The state, as it existed in August 1947, remains divided on the cease-fire line [between India and Pakistan] and hence continues to be a bleeding humanitarian and political issue, begging redressal,” he said.

For nearly 70 years, Article 370 had granted special rights to Jammu and Kashmir. This included having its own constitution and flag as well as restrictions on property ownership for non-residents. Additionally, Article 35A provided further special privileges for permanent residents. But with the repeal of Article 370, Article 35A was also eliminated, allowing non-Kashmiris to buy property in the region. This raised fears that Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government was trying to engineer a “demographic shift” in the predominantly Muslim area.

Coinciding with the August 2019 status change, Kashmir was placed under an unprecedented communication blackout as authorities focused on preventing unrest. Critics have long insisted that the actions were undemocratic.

“It resulted in mass arrests and detentions, a clampdown on the media, suspension of all civil liberties, difficulties in accessing education and health care, loss of livelihood and above all, contributed to a deafening silence that the Supreme Court’s order has regrettably given a stamp of approval to,” said Geeta Seeshu, co-editor of Free Speech Collective, which published a report on the communication blockade a month after revocation of Article 370.

Again, on Monday, the region was under tight security, although authorities insisted that no restrictions were imposed. Police advised Kashmiris on social media “not to indulge in propagation of terrorist or secessionist ideology.”

Many say that since 2019, Kashmiris have become reluctant to express their views for fear of intimidation, while local media has faced pressure and even arrests. Recently, the authorities have kept a lid on pro-Palestinian protests amid the Israel-Hamas war, apparently out of concern that they could spiral out of control.

Ahmad, a Srinagar rickshaw driver who gave only his first name, told Nikkei that he was disappointed by the ruling. Expressing a common concern about a potential shift in the population, he said: “Now you will have outsiders in Kashmir who will compete with our children. They already have less opportunities and now they will have more competition.”

The Modi government, however, insists that it is working for Jammu and Kashmir’s development to bring it up to speed economically with the rest of the country.

After the Supreme Court ruling, Modi posted on X: “I want to assure the resilient people of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh that our commitment to fulfilling your dreams remains unwavering. We are determined to ensure that the fruits of progress not only reach you but also extend their benefits to the most vulnerable and marginalized sections of our society who suffered due to Article 370.”

Such promises, however, have not softened criticism that the administration tramples on rights in the name of “normalcy” and “development.”

Anuradha Bhasin, a veteran journalist and author from Kashmir, said the court ruling “didn’t surprise me, but its brazenness in discarding legal merits and distorting history added to the disappointment.”

She said that in effect, the Supreme Court has endorsed and legitimized everything that the BJP government is doing “by steamrolling new laws and repressive actions” — something she fears will make it harder to carry out her work as a journalist.

Legal experts say India’s judiciary tends to back the government on most things these days. One expert in Kashmir, who declined to be named, said, “On turning the region into a federally controlled territory, the top court of India has simply abdicated its duty by leaving it to the government to decide when it wants to restore the statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.”