Sitaram Yechury, a formidable leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)], was known for his relentless defense of secularism, democracy, and the rights of marginalized communities. Among his many political battles, his opposition to the nullification of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, stands out as one of the most vocal and significant stances in his career. For Yechury, the revocation of Article 370 in August 2019 was not merely a legal or administrative move; it was, in his view, part of a broader “fascistic project” aimed at reshaping the secular fabric of India.
The decision to revoke Article 370 was taken by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, under the premise of integrating Jammu and Kashmir more fully into the Indian Union. However, Yechury and many other opposition leaders saw it as an attack on the unique status of India’s only Muslim-majority state. He argued that the move was a deliberate attempt to alter the demographic makeup of the region, aiming to diminish the influence of its Muslim majority. Through his sharp critiques, Yechury emerged as one of the most persistent voices of dissent against what he saw as the BJP’s efforts to turn India into a Hindu Rashtra, a vision rooted in the ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
The Nullification of Article 370: Yechury’s View
At a press conference held shortly after the revocation of Article 370, Yechury released a booklet prepared by the CPI(M) to counter what he described as a government-led campaign of “misinformation and obfuscation” on the issue. According to Yechury, the nullification of Article 370 was not just an issue of national integration but a calculated move to undermine the secular nature of India by specifically targeting Jammu and Kashmir’s Muslim population. He emphasized that changing the demographic character of Jammu and Kashmir was central to the BJP’s agenda.
“This is the only Muslim-majority state in India,” Yechury noted during the press conference. “The original objective of removing Article 370 is to change its demographic detail.” He further elaborated that the move was part of a larger project to convert India from a secular democracy into a Hindu Rashtra, a long-held vision of the RSS. For Yechury, the nullification was not just an isolated political decision but a dangerous precedent that could reshape the constitutional and democratic principles of the country.
A Dangerous Precedent
Yechury consistently pointed out the unconstitutional nature of the revocation of Article 370, arguing that it violated the federal principles embedded in the Indian Constitution. According to Article 3 of the Constitution, the boundaries of any state could not be altered without the concurrence of the state’s Legislative Assembly. However, the BJP government had dissolved the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly before the revocation of Article 370, thus enabling the central government to make the decision without local representation.
Yechury criticized this move as setting a “dangerous precedent” for Indian democracy. By bypassing the Assembly and using the office of the Governor as a proxy for an elected government, Yechury believed that the BJP had violated the spirit of federalism. He argued that the nullification of Article 370 was not just an affront to the people of Jammu and Kashmir but also a threat to the broader principles of Indian democracy, where states have a certain degree of autonomy.
Yechury’s stance was further strengthened by his consistent demand for the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood and the holding of Assembly elections. He asked a pointed question: if the central government could hold parliamentary elections in Jammu and Kashmir, why was it hesitant to hold Assembly polls in the region? His query underscored the inconsistency in the government’s approach, suggesting that the BJP was more interested in controlling Jammu and Kashmir through direct central rule rather than allowing its people to elect their own representatives.
The Larger RSS Project
For Yechury, the nullification of Article 370 was part of a larger project driven by the RSS, the ideological parent of the BJP, to transform India’s secular fabric. He was particularly vocal about how the BJP and the RSS were spreading misinformation regarding the historical context of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India.
Yechury pointed out that Syama Prasad Mukherjee, a key figure in the RSS and founder of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (the precursor to the BJP), was part of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Cabinet when Article 370 was adopted. Mukherjee, according to Yechury, was party to every decision taken regarding Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, which directly contradicted the RSS’s claims that Article 370 was a historical mistake. Furthermore, Yechury highlighted that when the people of Kashmir, across religions, united against the feudal rule of Maharaja Hari Singh, it was the Praja Parishad—a front of the RSS—that sided with the Maharaja, opposing the people’s demands for a democratic government.
These historical facts, Yechury argued, were deliberately concealed by the BJP and RSS to build a narrative that justified the nullification of Article 370. He believed that the RSS’s ultimate goal was to redefine Indian nationhood in a way that prioritized Hindu identity over the country’s rich plurality of faiths, languages, and cultures.
The Impact on Jammu and Kashmir
Yechury’s concerns about the nullification of Article 370 extended beyond its legal and constitutional implications. He also raised alarm about its potential social and economic impact on Jammu and Kashmir. In his view, the state’s autonomy had allowed it to maintain a distinct identity within the Indian Union, and its revocation would lead to the erosion of that identity.
Yechury was particularly worried about the potential demographic changes that could follow the nullification. He believed that the BJP’s policies, including the introduction of domicile laws that made it easier for non-residents to acquire property in Jammu and Kashmir, were designed to change the region’s demographic makeup. Such changes, he argued, could lead to increased communal tensions and undermine the delicate social fabric of the region.
Furthermore, Yechury was a staunch advocate for the restoration of communication and civil liberties in Jammu and Kashmir. Following the revocation of Article 370, the government imposed a communications blackout and detained several political leaders. Yechury himself had petitioned the Supreme Court to allow him to visit the state, where he met with detained CPI(M) leader Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami. He consistently called for the release of political prisoners and the restoration of normalcy in the region, emphasizing that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir was far from “normal,” as the government claimed.
Legacy of Yechury’s Stand on Kashmir
Sitaram Yechury’s vocal opposition to the nullification of Article 370 and his broader criticism of the BJP’s handling of Jammu and Kashmir cemented his position as a leading defender of India’s secular and democratic principles. His arguments were rooted in a deep understanding of India’s constitutional framework, federal structure, and the historical context of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession.
Even after his passing, Yechury’s warnings about the consequences of the BJP’s actions in Kashmir continue to resonate with those who share his concerns about the future of Indian democracy. For Yechury, the nullification of Article 370 was not just a political issue but a moral one. It represented, in his view, the encroachment of a narrow, majoritarian ideology on India’s rich tapestry of cultural and religious diversity.
Yechury’s legacy on the Kashmir issue is likely to be remembered for his steadfast commitment to secularism, federalism, and democracy. He believed that the only way forward for Jammu and Kashmir—and for India as a whole—was through dialogue, reconciliation, and a commitment to the principles enshrined in the Constitution. His voice of dissent against the nullification of Article 370 will continue to inspire future generations of political leaders who seek to uphold these values in the face of rising authoritarianism.
