In early December, India’s Supreme Court pronounced its verdict in the controversial Article 370 case. The article is a constitutional provision that determines the relationship between India and the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, binding the region and the world’s most populace nation. Indian lawmakers initially intended it to be an interim arrangement, but since independence, Article 370 has become a device through which India has sought to maintain permanent control over Kashmir.

After the partition of British India into the independent nation-states of India and Pakistan, the Maharaja Hari Singh, the unpopular ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, had to decide whether to accede to one of the newly formed nations or to retain sovereign control over his monarchy by remaining independent. The princely states were directly ruled by the British Crown until the end of the colonial era. Kashmir itself was sold by the British in 1846 to the Dogra Maharaja in exchange for a meager 75 lakh rupees, creating an undemocratic and unrepresentative head of state. The problem was that the worldview underlying partition maintained that India would be a homeland for Hindus, while Pakistan would exist for Muslims. This made the rule of a Hindu over the predominately Muslim nation of Jammu and Kashmir problematic.

Things came to a head in 1947, when a revolt in the Poonch area of Jammu led by tribesmen coming from Pakistan’s northwest border created a political crisis in the state, culminating in the Maharaja signing a conditional accession with the Union of India. Upon signing the Instrument of Accession, the Maharaja retained his sovereignty over all matters except defense, external affairs, and communication.