Top

Pavan K. Varma | Why Hasn’t Full Statehood Been Restored In J&K?

The current status of J&K as a Union Territory (UT) defies both the federal spirit and the democratic ethos of the Constitution

I have recently returned from a short sojourn in Kashmir. While the Valley is as beautiful, it bears a distressing deserted look, for the lack of tourists in the aftermath of the heinous terrorist attack in Pahalgam. Last year, when I was in Pahalgam for a holiday, the spectacle was entirely different. The shops were full, the restaurants did not have seating space, and hotels had queues waiting to get a room. The mesmerising Lidder river had a lilt to it; the majestic Pir Panjal range glistened in the sun as a benediction.

During my stay this year, I had the opportunity to interact with many Kashmiris, both ordinary citizens and important personalities like Dr Karan Singh, Farooq Abdullah, former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Krishna Kaul, Vijay Dhar and the chief minister, Omar Abdullah. One question that looms large in their collective mind is when statehood will be restored to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).

The current status of J&K as a Union Territory (UT) defies both the federal spirit and the democratic ethos of the Constitution. Let us be clear: UTs, by design, are administered to limit the powers of a democratically elected local government. To demote a state like Jammu and Kashmir — larger in size, population, and historical legacy than many Indian states — under such a framework is not merely disproportionate, it is also the first time that it has been done to an existing state in the last 75 years.

Frankly, I cannot understand why the Central government is delaying restoration. In 2019, when annulling Article 370 and designating J&K as a UT, the home minister of India promised on the floor of the House that full statehood would be restored “at an appropriate time”. In August 2023, the Central government assured the Supreme Court (SC) that the UT status is temporary. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s exact words to the SC were: “I assure you we are progressively proceeding to make J&K a complete state.” A five-judge bench of the SC presided over by the chief justice, issued a direction in December 2023 that J&K’s statehood should be restored. It further instructed that, towards that end, elections should be held by September 2024.

Elections were, indeed, held in September 2024. They were transparently free and fair, with a high turnout of around 60 per cent. The National Conference won an absolute majority in the 90-member House, and Omar Abdullah became the chief minister. In its first sitting the newly elected J&K Assembly passed a unanimous resolution asking for restoration of statehood.

And yet, there was no response from the Central government. One cannot ignore the implications this delay has had on the democratic health of the region. For nearly five years, the people of J&K were disenfranchised from electing a government that governs in their name. They were administered, not represented. In a federal democracy like ours, this is not a trivial matter. It is an erosion of the basic premise that power must emanate from the will of the people. Governance, especially in a region with a history as sensitive as J&K’s, must draw its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, not the fiat of the bureaucracy.

There is also a psychological dimension to this discourse. The people of Jammu and Kashmir, like all Indians, seek dignity. Dignity, in a democratic republic, is not bestowed by military presence or economic packages alone. It is affirmed when citizens feel they are stakeholders in the shaping of their own future. The continued denial of statehood breeds a sense of alienation, a perception that the region is a laboratory for political experimentation, not a participant in the national mainstream.

On April 29 this year, the dastardly terrorist attack of Pahalgam took place. In a spontaneous act of revulsion at this barbarism, almost all Kashmiris openly protested. Traders and businessmen called a bandh; citizens took out candlelight marches; mosque congregations wore a black band to show their strong disapproval; and, the chief cleric of the Valley, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, condemned the attack, asking all Kashmiris to mourn for the victims.

It was an unprecedented act of solidarity by Kashmiris against Pakistan sponsored terrorism, a damning disavowal of this kind of sectarian violence, that also hit livelihoods, since tourism is a major source of revenue. I think the unanimity of this condemnation by Kashmiris took the Central government, too, by surprise. But precisely for this reason, this was the time when, seeing this open support against what happened in Pahalgam, New Delhi should have, in a gesture of appreciation, begun the process of restoration of statehood.

In this context the fact that Omar Abdullah is the chief minister is important. I have known him for years, and can say this with certainty that he is no irresponsible extremist, and can be trusted to work constructively with the Centre. But trust is a two-way street. If he feels his views are not being taken into account, or are being deliberately ignored, or that the Kashmiris are being ridden roughshod, it is only to be expected that — to retain his own self-esteem and the respect of Kashmiris — he will not take it lying down.

That is why he was anguished that, instead of capitalising on the post-Pahalgam anti-terror and anti-Pakistan sentiment, the Central government, which controls the security forces, went on an indiscriminatory retaliatory spree in which houses of neighbours and relatives of suspected terrorists were arbitrarily demolished, in direct violation of the SC’s instructions in this regard. This dissipated some of the support that was so apparent among Kashmiris after Pahalgam. Moreover, it is humiliating for Kashmiris that the chief minister, whom they democratically elected, has no role in matters of law and order, and is neither invited nor briefed on security operations.

In conclusion, the question before us is not whether Jammu and Kashmir can be granted statehood. The question is, why has it not already been? The strength of democratic India must lie on its willingness to trust its people, and not by simplistically perpetuating authority. J&K deserves its full statehood back — with dignity and with urgency.

( Source : Asian Age )
Next Story