FAQs & Glossary

Frequently Asked Questions

What was Article 370?

Article 370 was a provision in Part XXI of the Indian Constitution that accorded special autonomous status to the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir. It enabled the President to apply constitutional provisions to J&K with exceptions and modifications, and it mediated the pace and scope of integration through Presidential Orders.

Framing Article 370 as a procedural gateway rather than a sovereignty reservation clarifies why its dismantling is argued to complete, not rupture, constitutional integration.

Meta-FAQ Pattern: Many introductory queries conflate autonomy with quasi‑treaty federalism; clarifying that Article 370 governed application mechanics (not secession contingencies) reduces conceptual drift in subsequent debate threads.

Temporary vs Transitional: The constitutional text labelled the provision temporary, yet decades of iterative Presidential Orders produced a transitional arc—its durability was functional, not textual, sustained by political choice rather than embedded permanence.

Cross-link: For full clause wording and adaptation mechanics see Article 370 Text & Clauses.

What changed on August 5, 2019?

Through Presidential Orders C.O. 272 and C.O. 273 and supporting parliamentary resolutions/legislation, the application of the Constitution to J&K was revised, and Article 370 was declared inoperative. The State was reorganised into two Union Territories: Jammu & Kashmir (with legislature) and Ladakh (without legislature).

The date signifies a procedural bundle—interpretive adaptation plus territorial reorganisation—rather than a single isolated legal act.

Process Clarifier: Treating the shift as a multi‑step constitutional transaction (interpretation pivot, declaration issuance, reorganisation statute) prevents oversimplified binary narratives of instant repeal.

Article 370(1) vs 370(3): Sub-clause (1) channelled incremental application via Orders; sub-clause (3) provided the inoperative declaration pathway. The 2019 sequence repurposed (1) mechanisms to operationalise a (3) outcome once interpretive preconditions were reframed.

Cross-link: Sequencing detail of the cessation pathway is outlined under Abrogation Mechanics.

What happened to Article 35A?

Article 35A, which empowered the erstwhile J&K legislature to define “permanent residents” and their special rights, ceased to operate post‑2019 when the 1954 Presidential Order underpinning it was superseded.

Article 35A’s removal reopens equality adjudication channels previously foreclosed, shifting contestation from shielded status to ordinary constitutional review.

Misconception Watch: Some summaries imply Article 35A existed as a freestanding constitutional article; in practice it functioned via the 1954 Order’s insertion—its cessation followed the Order’s displacement.

Domicile vs Former PRC: Post‑2019 domicile style criteria (administrative residence proofs, service tenures, educational records) differ structurally from hereditary lineage tests embedded in prior Permanent Resident Certificate regimes.

Is the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment supportive of the abrogation?

The Supreme Court upheld the changes, including the interpretive use of Article 367 and the reorganisation process, while calling for expeditious restoration of statehood and elections to the J&K Legislative Assembly.

Judicial endorsement narrows future facial challenge avenues, relocating debate to implementation timetables (elections, statehood).

Interpretive Nuance: While upholding procedural validity, the judgment embeds a governance conditional—timely representative restoration—thereby coupling legality affirmation with democratic expectations.

Article 367 Usage Boundary: Adaptation via an interpretive clause stretched purposive construction without recasting core constitutional amending thresholds; the Court’s acceptance signals a high tolerance for functional redefinition when consistency with structural principles is asserted.

What are the implications for property and residency rights?

Uniform application of central laws followed. The erstwhile permanent resident criteria no longer apply; property transactions and eligibility for government schemes are governed by Union Territory frameworks and central legislation. See Article 35A & Residency Rights.

Rights discourse shifts from exclusivity preservation to inclusion management—monitoring demographic perceptions versus empirically tracked changes.

Interpretation vs Amendment: The 2019 pathway illustrates how expansive interpretation (via Article 367 adaptation) can precede a formal cessation declaration without invoking the Article 368 amendment process; debate persists on normative limits of such sequencing.

Will statehood be restored?

The Union Government has stated that statehood for Jammu & Kashmir will be restored at an appropriate time. The Supreme Court (2023) encouraged timely elections. For ongoing political discourse, see Return of Statehood Demand.

Statehood has become a performance benchmark for assessing integration outcomes rather than a reversal demand for special constitutional status.

How does this affect India–Pakistan relations?

India maintains that J&K is an integral part of India and that any outstanding issues are to be addressed bilaterally under the Simla Agreement. For wider context, see India‑Pakistan Relations & Kashmir.

External diplomatic narratives often repackage domestic constitutional shifts; bilateralism framing constrains multilateral reinterpretation efforts.

Discourse Boundary: Emphasis on bilateralism narrows scope for third‑party procedural intervention proposals, shaping the international issue-attention cycle.

Are there human rights concerns?

Stakeholders cite concerns regarding communication restrictions, preventive detention, and due process, especially around 2019. Government sources emphasise security imperatives and subsequent normalisation measures. See Kashmir Conflict Overview.

Where can I read the official texts?

Primary sources include the Constitution of India (indiacode.nic.in), Presidential Orders (legislative.gov.in), the J&K Reorganisation Act (indiacode.nic.in), and the Supreme Court judgment (main.sci.gov.in).

Why was Article 370 placed in Part XXI (Temporary, Transitional & Special Provisions)?

Its placement signalled an adaptive gateway for phased constitutional application rather than a perpetual sovereignty carve‑out. The staged Presidential Order mechanism enabled incremental convergence over decades. See Article 370 Clauses.

Did the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly in 1957 freeze Article 370 permanently?

Judicial interpretations treated Article 370 as continuing despite the Assembly’s dissolution, allowing later adaptation steps. Petitioners argued permanence; the Supreme Court (2023) rejected that view. See Core Constitutional Questions.

What role did Article 367 play in the 2019 process?

An interpretive modification (via C.O. 272) adjusted how references were read, enabling procedural substitution before the inoperative declaration. See Role of Article 367 Modification.

Is the 2019 change considered an amendment under Article 368?

The government and Supreme Court framed it as lawful adaptation plus declaration within existing powers, not a formal Article 368 amendment. Debate persists academically on interpretive versus substantive boundaries.

How did Presidential Rule (Article 356) factor into the abrogation?

With the State under President’s Rule, Union institutions exercised the State’s legislative powers, facilitating the adaptation sequence. Scope questions were litigated and addressed in the 2023 judgment. See Article 356 Scope Debate.

What is meant by “integration trajectory” in the context of Article 370?

The term describes decades of incremental extension of Union provisions, presented by supporters as evidence the provision was transitional. See Integration narrative notes.

Did abrogation itself create new federal powers?

No new Union competencies were created; asymmetry mechanisms were withdrawn, normalising application of existing constitutional structures. See Abrogation Mechanics.

How was the State reorganised after abrogation?

The J&K Reorganisation Act split the erstwhile State into the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir (with legislature) and Ladakh (without). See Reorganisation Act section.

What monitoring metrics are discussed for post‑abrogation governance?

Suggested indicators include election timelines, legislative throughput post restoration, detention review pace, and rights adjudication disposal rates. See Open / Residual Questions.

How did the Supreme Court frame statehood restoration?

It encouraged timely restoration without imposing a fixed deadline, coupling legitimacy expectations with procedural validation. See Directions & Consequential Aspects.

What changed for domicile versus prior Permanent Resident Certificates?

Eligibility pivoted from lineage‑centric PRC criteria to residency/service based domicile documentation, altering evidentiary burdens. See Rights & Residency.

Did Article 35A’s cessation remove all land safeguards?

It removed the constitutionalised PRC-based filter; subsequent land and property regulations rely on general statutes and UT notifications rather than Article 35A shield mechanisms.

How is “democratic deficit” used in debates?

Critics reference the interval without an elected assembly; supporters point to administrative consolidation and security as transitional necessities. See Perspectives & Debates.

Are there open constitutional questions after the 2023 judgment?

Yes: scope of future Article 356 uses for structural change, temporal expectations for statehood restoration, and interpretive vs substantive adaptation boundaries remain analytic watchpoints. See Open Questions.

How does the film “Article 370” differ from documentary treatment?

It compresses timelines and employs composite characters to deliver a procedural thriller narrative rather than multi-perspective documentary documentation. See Themes & Analysis.

Why are composite characters used in dramatizations?

They consolidate institutional roles for pacing efficiency, trading granular fidelity for accessible narrative coherence. See Principal Cast.

What is meant by “procedural substitution” in arguments?

It refers to using interpretive tools (Article 367 adaptation) and President’s Rule powers to stand in for an absent recommending body (the dissolved Constituent Assembly). See Analytical Reasoning Highlights.

How does delimitation influence future governance?

Redrawn constituencies can shift representational balance, affecting coalition formation and legislative agenda control. See Delimitation.

What is “controversy elasticity” mentioned in analyses?

A concept describing how recurring public debate cycles can extend a film’s or policy issue’s attention lifespan, indirectly sustaining engagement metrics. See Box Office Performance.

Does abrogation resolve all rights debates?

No. Structural status questions narrowed, but rights-based petitions (due process, equality, expression) may shape subsequent jurisprudence. See Residual Questions.

Where can I see timeline context for the legal steps?

Refer to the chronological sequencing overview and dated milestones in the timeline section for macro to micro placement. See Key Events Timeline.

Why is statehood restoration tied to legitimacy narratives?

Because post‑abrogation constitutional normalisation is partly evaluated by re‑establishing representative institutions, linking procedural legality with democratic optics. See Directions.

Does removal of Article 370 affect Articles 371 or other regional special provisions?

No. The change was specific to J&K’s asymmetric pathway. Articles 371 and related clauses continue to operate under their distinct textual rationales.

What distinguishes interpretive adaptation from constitutional amendment?

Adaptation re-reads or clarifies application mechanics (e.g., via Article 367) without invoking Article 368’s formal amendment thresholds; an amendment alters constitutional text. Debate focuses on the outer boundary where adaptation could shade into effective amendment.

Why is statehood restoration framed as a legitimacy metric?

Because post‑abrogation normalisation is assessed not only on legal validity but also on reactivation of representative institutions, linking constitutional integration to democratic practice.

What are common misconceptions about Article 35A?

That it was a standalone article (it operated through a Presidential Order) and that its cessation automatically deregulates all property—subsequent regulation still exists under ordinary law.

How does delimitation interact with political strategy post‑2019?

Revised constituency boundaries can recalibrate electoral competitiveness and coalition arithmetic, influencing governance agenda sequencing.

What analytical tests emerged from the Supreme Court’s reasoning?

Implicit composite tests include purpose alignment (integration), structural consistency (no novel institutions), reasonable procedural substitution, and preservation of core federal competencies.

Is there an economic dimension to the legal transition?

Uniform application of central schemes and regulatory frameworks aims to reduce administrative friction; empirical evaluation depends on sectoral investment and service delivery data over time.

How do rights-based challenges differ from structural challenges now?

Structural avenues narrowed post‑judgment; future litigation is expected to emphasise specific rights impacts (equality, due process) requiring evidentiary records rather than abstract constitutional theory.

Why is communication control a recurring debate theme?

Because it sits at the intersection of security rationale and civil liberty norms; proportionality assessments hinge on duration, scope and review mechanisms.

What does “transitional arc” mean in this context?

The multi‑decade sequence of incremental constitutional extensions culminating in full integration rather than an abrupt shift.

How do composite characters in the film influence public understanding?

They streamline complex institutional roles into digestible archetypes, potentially narrowing appreciation of multi‑agency decision processes.

Can Presidential Rule always facilitate structural change?

Not categorically. The judgment contextualised its acceptance within integration objectives; future uses would be scrutinised for mala fide or federal erosion.

What is the difference between domicile certification and former PRC status?

Domicile emphasises present residence/service criteria; PRC embedded lineage-linked historical status conferring exclusive benefits.

How does “controversy elasticity” apply outside film?

Policy issues with recurrent trigger events can sustain attention cycles, influencing public engagement and media prioritisation beyond initial announcements.

Why is granular data release important post‑abrogation?

Detailed statistics on elections, rights cases, and public services help separate facts from speculation in ongoing debates. Transparent data allows more informed public discussion.

Article 371 Series (Similar Articles)

How many states have special provisions under Article 371 series?

Twelve states have special provisions: Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Sikkim, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, and Karnataka (Hyderabad-Karnataka region). See Comparison Table.

What is the key difference between Article 370 and Article 371?

Article 370 was labelled "temporary" with a built-in cessation clause (370(3)), creating a separate constitutional application mechanism. Article 371 provisions are "special" without cessation clauses—they operate within the existing framework with targeted exceptions, requiring Article 368 amendments to modify. See 370 vs 371 Comparison.

Can Article 371 provisions be abrogated like Article 370?

Unlike Article 370 which had its own cessation pathway, Article 371 provisions would require formal constitutional amendments under Article 368 to modify or remove, making them more constitutionally entrenched.

Which Article 371 provision is most similar to Article 370?

Article 371A (Nagaland) and Article 371G (Mizoram) are most analogous—they protect customary law, religious practices, and land ownership, and require state legislature consent before central laws apply on these matters. See Article 371A.

What is Article 371F and how did Sikkim join India?

Article 371F was inserted by the 36th Amendment Act, 1975, when Sikkim merged with India following a referendum. It protects Sikkimese identity, gives the Governor special peace-keeping responsibilities, and uniquely excludes Supreme Court jurisdiction on pre-merger treaties. See Article 371F.

What provisions protect tribal rights in Northeast India?

Articles 371A (Nagaland), 371B (Assam), 371C (Manipur), 371G (Mizoram), and 371H (Arunachal Pradesh) contain provisions protecting tribal customs, land ownership, and autonomy. Additionally, the Sixth Schedule provides for autonomous district councils. See Similar Articles page.

What is Article 371J and why was it added in 2012?

Article 371J addresses the backwardness of the Hyderabad-Karnataka region (six districts: Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur, Koppal, Yadgir, and Bellary). It provides for a development board, equitable fund allocation, and reservations in education and employment. See Article 371J.

What is the Mizo Accord and how is it related to Article 371G?

The Mizo Accord (1986) ended two decades of insurgency in Mizoram. Article 371G implements its constitutional aspects, protecting Mizo customary law, religious practices, and land ownership—considered one of India's most successful insurgency resolutions. See Article 371G.

Do Article 371 provisions create separate constitutions for states?

No. Unlike J&K which had its own Constitution (1957) under Article 370, no state under Article 371 has a separate constitution. These provisions operate within the Indian Constitution with specific exceptions.

What is asymmetric federalism in the Indian context?

Asymmetric federalism refers to constitutional arrangements where different states have different relationships with the Union. Articles 370 (now inoperative) and the 371 series exemplify this—providing differentiated treatment based on historical, geographical, or social circumstances. See Asymmetric Federalism.

Glossary of Terms

Article 370
A constitutional provision (now inoperative) that governed the terms of the application of the Indian Constitution to Jammu & Kashmir.
Article 35A
A provision inserted by the 1954 Presidential Order that empowered the J&K legislature to define “permanent residents” and set associated rights; ceased post‑2019 changes.
Instrument of Accession (IoA)
Legal instrument used by princely states in 1947–48 to accede to the Dominion of India on specified subjects such as Defence, External Affairs and Communications.
C.O. 272
The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019, which modified how the Constitution applied to J&K, including through changes to Article 367's interpretive clause. This order enabled the subsequent declaration making Article 370 inoperative.
C.O. 273
The Presidential Order of 2019 declaring Article 370 inoperative, facilitating full application of the Constitution of India to J&K.
J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019
Parliamentary statute that bifurcated the erstwhile State into two Union Territories: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
Asymmetric Federalism
Constitutional arrangements that provide differentiated powers or provisions to certain states/regions (e.g., Articles 371 series), contrasted with the historical procedural asymmetry under Article 370.
Article 371 Series
A set of constitutional provisions (Articles 371 to 371J) under Part XXI providing special provisions for 12 states including Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Northeast states, protecting regional development, tribal rights, and customary laws.
Article 371A (Nagaland)
Special provision inserted in 1962 following the 16-Point Agreement, protecting Naga customary law, religious practices, and land ownership; requires state legislature consent for central laws on these matters.
Article 371F (Sikkim)
Provision inserted in 1975 when Sikkim merged with India, protecting Sikkimese identity, giving Governor special responsibilities, and uniquely excluding Supreme Court jurisdiction on pre-merger treaties.
Article 371G (Mizoram)
Special provision inserted in 1986 following the Mizo Accord, protecting Mizo customary law, religious practices, and land ownership—considered one of India's most successful insurgency resolutions.
Sixth Schedule
Constitutional provision (Articles 244(2) and 275(1)) establishing autonomous district councils for tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram, with legislative, judicial, and executive powers.
Part XXI
Part of the Constitution containing "Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions" (Articles 369-392), including the now-inoperative Article 370 and the active Article 371 series.
Delimitation
Redrawing electoral constituency boundaries; post‑2019, a Delimitation Commission revised assembly constituencies in J&K, increasing total seats from 87 to 90.
Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC)
Document historically used to establish permanent residency status under the erstwhile J&K framework tied to Article 35A; no longer determinative post‑2019 changes.

Transition Risk: Legacy documentation confusion can generate administrative friction; clarity in successor eligibility instruments mitigates informal gatekeeping.

Administrative Migration: Replacement domicile certification emphasises forward-looking presence and service ties rather than ancestral lineage validation, altering evidentiary burdens for applicants.

Union Territory (UT)
An administrative division in India governed directly by the Union Government; J&K (with legislature) and Ladakh (without legislature) are UTs post‑2019.
UNCIP
United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, engaged during the 1947–49 conflict period over Jammu & Kashmir.
Sadr-i-Riyasat
The constitutional head of Jammu & Kashmir from 1952–1965, equivalent to a Governor but elected by the State Legislature rather than appointed by the Centre. Karan Singh was the first and only Sadr-i-Riyasat. The position was replaced by an appointed Governor in 1965.
Wazir-e-Azam (Prime Minister)
Title of the head of government in Jammu & Kashmir from 1947–1965. Sheikh Abdullah was the first Prime Minister. The title was changed to Chief Minister in 1965 to align with other Indian states.
State Subject
Classification established by Maharaja Hari Singh in 1927 and 1932 notifications defining residents entitled to special rights in J&K. This evolved into the "Permanent Resident" concept post-1947 and was protected under Article 35A until 2019.
President's Rule (Article 356)
Constitutional provision allowing the Union Government to assume direct governance of a state when constitutional machinery fails. J&K was under President's Rule during the 2019 abrogation, enabling Parliament to act on behalf of the state legislature.
Simla Agreement (1972)
Bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan following the 1971 war, establishing that Kashmir disputes would be resolved bilaterally without third-party intervention. India cites this to counter internationalization efforts.
Line of Control (LoC)
The military control line between India-administered and Pakistan-administered portions of Kashmir, established after the 1972 Simla Agreement. It replaced the earlier Ceasefire Line of 1949.
AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act)
Legislation granting special powers to armed forces in "disturbed areas." Applied to J&K under the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990. Remains a controversial human rights issue.
Public Safety Act (PSA)
J&K-specific preventive detention law allowing detention without trial for up to two years. Frequently used for security purposes; criticized by human rights organizations.
Basic Structure Doctrine
Judicial principle from Kesavananda Bharati (1973) holding that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to destroy its essential features. Petitioners argued this was violated; the Supreme Court (2023) disagreed.
Lieutenant Governor (LG)
Post-2019, the head of both Union Territories (J&K and Ladakh), appointed by the President. In J&K UT, the LG exercises significant executive powers, particularly over public order and police.
Domicile Certificate
Document introduced under 2020 rules replacing the PRC system. Eligibility based on 15-year residency or 7-year study/10+2 examination. Broadened access to previously excluded groups including West Pakistan refugees and Valmiki workers.
Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC)
Elected local bodies in Leh and Kargil districts with limited legislative and developmental powers. Post-2019, these councils remain operational while Ladakh UT lacks a full legislature.
Sixth Schedule
Constitutional provision creating Autonomous District Councils for tribal areas in Northeast India. Ladakh groups have demanded Sixth Schedule protection post-2019 to safeguard land and cultural rights.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Mechanism recommended by Justice S.K. Kaul in his 2023 concurring opinion to address human rights violations in J&K. Modeled on South Africa's post-apartheid process but not mandated by the Court.
Half-Widow
Term used for women whose husbands disappeared during the Kashmir conflict and whose fates remain unknown. Without death certificates, these women face legal limbo regarding inheritance, remarriage, and government benefits.

The half-widow phenomenon illustrates how conflict-era documentation gaps create enduring administrative and psychological burdens for affected families.

People's Alliance for Gupkar Declaration (PAGD)
Coalition of political parties formed in 2020 seeking restoration of Article 370 and statehood. Key members include National Conference, PDP, and others. Named after the Gupkar road in Srinagar where meetings were held.
Roshni Act
Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001, which allowed transfer of state land to occupants. Became controversial due to alleged irregularities; declared void by J&K High Court in 2020.
UNMOGIP
United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan, established in 1949 to monitor the ceasefire line. India considers its mandate obsolete post-Simla Agreement; Pakistan maintains it remains relevant.
Articles 371 Series
Constitutional provisions granting special arrangements to various states (371A for Nagaland, 371G for Mizoram, etc.). These remain operative and are distinct from Article 370's asymmetric framework for J&K.

The survival of Articles 371 provisions post-2019 demonstrates that the abrogation was specific to Article 370's architecture rather than a general rollback of constitutional asymmetry.

Stone-Pelting
Form of protest prevalent in Kashmir during 2008–2018 period, particularly involving youth during unrest. Legal response included binding over and detention under various provisions.
Encounter
Security forces operations against militants, often resulting in fatalities. Subject to judicial scrutiny and human rights oversight debates regarding proportionality and procedural compliance.
Security operation involving area sealing and house-to-house searches for militants or weapons. Standard counter-insurgency tactic; subject to procedural safeguards and rights oversight.
Special Status Officer / Security Coordination
Administrative and security coordination mechanisms established for J&K's unique governance requirements, particularly during heightened security periods.
UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act)
Central anti-terrorism legislation allowing preventive detention and prosecution for terrorist activities. Frequently invoked in Kashmir; criticized for broad definitions and limited bail provisions.

UAPA usage statistics in J&K versus national averages provide one metric for assessing security law application intensity.

Burhan Wani Effect
Reference to 2016 unrest following killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani, who had significant social media presence. The episode marked a shift in militancy recruitment and public mobilization patterns.
Back-Channel Diplomacy
Unofficial diplomatic communications between India and Pakistan on Kashmir, reported during various periods including the early 2000s. Details remain classified; outcomes disputed.
Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK)
Pakistan-administered portion of the former princely state, governed as a self-governing territory under Pakistani control. India considers it illegally occupied territory; Pakistan terms it liberated.
Gilgit-Baltistan
Northern region of former princely state, administered by Pakistan since 1947. Granted provisional provincial status in 2020. India claims it as part of integral territory.

Gilgit-Baltistan's 2020 status change occurred after India's 2019 reorganization, raising questions about sequencing and territorial claim dynamics.

2021 Ceasefire Reaffirmation
February 2021 joint statement by Indian and Pakistani DGMOs reaffirming commitment to ceasefire along LoC. Marked significant reduction in firing incidents; durability being monitored.
Peace Bus / Srinagar-Muzaffarabad Bus
Cross-LoC bus service launched in 2005 connecting Srinagar with Muzaffarabad (AJK capital). Enabled divided family reunions; service suspended periodically during tensions.
Tourist Footfall
Metric tracking visitor numbers to Kashmir, used as normalcy indicator. Record numbers post-2019 cited by government; critics note infrastructure strain and environmental concerns.
2025 Pahalgam Attack
Terror attack on April 22, 2025 at Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam killing 26 tourists. The Resistance Front (TRF) initially claimed responsibility. Triggered major India-Pakistan diplomatic crisis and military escalation.
Operation Sindoor
Indian military operation launched on May 7, 2025 involving missile strikes on Pakistan in response to the Pahalgam attack. Marked significant escalation in India-Pakistan tensions, followed by ceasefire on May 10, 2025.
Indus Waters Treaty Suspension (2025)
India's temporary suspension of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty announced on April 23, 2025 following the Pahalgam attack. Led to water release from Uri and Baglihar dams and diplomatic tensions.
TRF (The Resistance Front)
Militant group believed to be a proxy or offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba. Initially claimed responsibility for the 2025 Pahalgam attack. UN-designated terrorist organization.

See Also