Tushar SharmaNew Delhi: Reading “370: Undoing the Unjust, A New Future for J&K” felt like moving through a layered political thriller—except this one is drawn entirely from India’s constitutional history. Authored by the BlueKraft Digital Foundation and published by Penguin Random House India, the 544-page account claims to be the “most definitive” telling of how Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government achieved what had long seemed politically impossible: the abrogation of Article 370.
From the outset, the book leaves little doubt about its stance. Article 370 is framed as an “unjust” provision—a historical anomaly that undermined equality. First introduced as a temporary measure in 1949, it effectively granted Jammu & Kashmir its own constitution, flag, and separate rules. The authors argue that this arrangement discriminated against women, the poor, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other marginalised communities in the state.
What makes the early chapters compelling is the use of archival material that still has the power to surprise. One striking inclusion is a July 1947 letter from Jawaharlal Nehru to Maharaja Hari Singh, where Nehru reportedly turned down the Maharaja’s early offer to accede to India—a revelation that challenges familiar narratives about delayed integration. Even more telling is Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s correspondence with N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar in October 1949, showing Patel’s displeasure over last-minute changes to the constitutional draft. His curt remark—“any question of my approval does not arise”—captures the depth of disagreement among the founding leaders.
The book’s central chapters read almost cinematically as they trace the weeks and months before 5 August 2019. We see the Narendra Modi government’s legal strategy unfold in tandem with meticulous on-ground planning—from timing constitutional orders to deploying security forces in a way that pre-empted unrest. In his foreword, Modi reflects, “There was complete clarity in my mind… We wanted the decision… to happen with the concurrence of the people rather than imposition.” That personal note, however brief, lends immediacy to an otherwise institutionally driven narrative.
The authors manage to balance dense historical context with an accessible writing style. Policy details sit alongside anecdotes, and the narrative shifts smoothly between decades-old correspondence and modern-day political manoeuvres. For readers with a keen interest in constitutional law or contemporary politics, the level of detail is rewarding.
The timing of its release—on the sixth anniversary of the abrogation—reinforces its political undertone. Endorsements from senior leaders, such as External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar calling it “an eminently readable account of a crucial decision,” signals its place as a key text in the pro-abrogation narrative.
In the end, “370: Undoing the Unjust” is more than a chronicle of a constitutional change; it is a record of the political will, legal architecture, and logistical execution behind one of India’s most consequential decisions. Whether read as an insider’s memoir or a statement of conviction, it offers an engaging—if partial—lens on a historic turning point. For those seeking to understand the choreography of 5 August 2019, it remains essential reading.
