According to the reports of September 28, the assembly of Indian occupied Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) passed a non-binding resolution which endorsed the restoration of statehood. In 2000 and 2024 similar resolutions were passed by J&K assembly. Earlier few years ago, the Indian Supreme Court upheld the revocation of article 370 thus ending its special status but ordered New Delhi to arrange elections in J&K.
The opposition members of Bharataya Janata Party (BJP) condemned September 28 resolution terming it detrimental to national interests. But, Omar Abdullah, who heads occupied J&K and had moved that resolution termed demand for granting statehood as the legitimate right and urged upon the Indian government for “the immediate and urgent restoration of full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir”. BJP members in J&K assembly not only termed that resolution against national interest but also unconstitutional. Although, the resolution of 2000, 2004 and 2026 are non-binding but by demanding complete statehood for the Indian occupied J&K some degree of moral pressure may be exerted on New Delhi to reconsider its absorption of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh into the fold of Indian union. But, if BJP thinks that September 28 resolution demanding complete statehood for J&K is a violation of constitution it can approach the Supreme Court for annulling that resolution.
What will be the implications of passing non-binding resolution for granting full statehood on J&K’s association with the Indian Union? Will BJP take a stand against that resolution and how Omar Abdullah Chief Minister of Indian occupied J&K and his party will react to BJP’s walk out in the assembly and its opposition to that resolution? It seems fresh conflict in J&K has emerged after the passing of September 28 resolution which reflects that Muslim majority Valley of Kashmir is not in a mood to further tolerate its subjugation by New Delhi and the deployment of more than half a million Indian security forces.
Surprisingly, contrary to past practices and rules, the bureaucracy of J&K approached the speaker of assembly requesting him not to admit resolution on granting full statehood. It never happened before as narrated by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah. As reported by NDTV, in an unusual development, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Secretary Atal Dulloo and Law Secretary Achal Sethi have written separate letters to the Legislative Assembly Secretariat, seeking that a resolution on restoration of statehood not be taken up. NDTV reported that the letters were sent three days after Chief Minister Omar Abdullah moved the resolution, which was subsequently admitted by the House. The bureaucrats cited the matter being sub judice as a reason for opposing the resolution and urged the Assembly Secretariat to disallow it.
Chief Minister of Indian occupied J&K Omar Abdullah is right by stating that without achieving statehood his government will not be able to perform in a better manner and center will continue to undermine his authority.
According to the details, assembly Speaker Abdul Rahim Rathore told NDTV that there was no precedent for the bureaucracy writing to the Assembly Secretariat in such a manner. Rathore said that sending such a communication without the approval of the minister concerned amounted to an attempt to undermine the functioning of the House. “I don't think there is any precedent, bureaucracy writing to the Assembly secretariat to scuttle the business of the House. That too without the approval of the minister concerned,” the Speaker told NDTV. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, who also holds the Law portfolio, said he had no prior information about the letters and learnt about them only after being informed by the Assembly Secretariat. Speaking in the Assembly, Omar questioned how officials could send an opinion on a resolution moved by him without his knowledge.
He stated: “Speaker sir, I'm the Law Minister and also Chief Minister but I have no knowledge of my bureaucracy sending an opinion to you on my resolution. I do not know on whose instructions it was sent,” Omar said, according to NDTV. The Chief Minister linked the episode to Jammu and Kashmir's present status as a Union Territory, arguing that the absence of full statehood had resulted in a situation where the elected government did not exercise complete authority over the bureaucracy. Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Choudhary defended the resolution, saying the Assembly represents the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and that restoration of statehood is a demand shared across the region. The BJP has maintained that it supports restoration of statehood but opposes references to the 2000 autonomy resolution in the statehood resolution.
Revocation of article 370 and 35-A on August 5, 2019 which gave special status to J&K in the Indian constitution generated a crisis and its annulment was challenged in the Indian Supreme Court. The case lingered on till the time on December 23, 2023 the court upheld the revocation of special status of J&K but asked the government to hold assembly elections and to establish Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is yet to be seen if that commission has led to any work or it is merely on paper.
J&K’s losing statehood is a reality and needs to be analyzed from three standpoints. First, upholding the revocation of article 370 by the Indian government and its authentication by the President has been validated by the Indian Supreme Court. So, there is no possibility of revisiting Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act promulgated on August 5, 2020 which created union territories of J&K and Ladakh thus absorbing the whole o J&K including Ladakh in the Indian Union. That step paved the way for demographic changes particularly in the Muslim majority Valley of Kashmir. The condition that outsiders cannot buy local property or vote in elections was removed which vindicated the fears of Muslim Kashmiris that their majority in the Valley will be transformed into a minority.
Demanding statehood for J&K is legitimate but it is yet to be seen how it will be implemented particularly when the BJP is against 2000 resolution demanding statehood and termed 2026 resolution against national interest and constitution. Chief Minister of Indian occupied J&K Omar Abdullah is right by stating that without achieving statehood his government will not be able to perform in a better manner and center will continue to undermine his authority. Second, the intervention made by the bureaucrats of J&K by asking speaker of J&K assembly not to allow presentation of statehood resolution is a clear insubordination of Chief Minister. How can couple of bureaucrats of J&K ask speaker of assembly not to allow statehood resolution to be presented in the assembly? Certainly, such an act was sanctioned by New Delhi and BJP members of J&K assembly.
By opposing statehood resolution moved by the Chief Minister of J&K BJP members representing opposition benches tend to expose ulterior motive of New Delhi that a semblance of direct rule of center should continue under the cover of J&K Reorganization Act. But, it seems, another phase of polarization and political schism is in the making. Finally, India’s assertive role in J&K following August 5, 2019 Reorganization Act reflects the failure of Pakistan to effectively challenge what New Delhi has done by absorbing J&K in its fold and changing the demography particularly of Muslim majority Valley of Kashmir. Instead of getting itself involved in the Middle East and West Asia following Iran-U.S war and having failed to mitigate political polarization at the domestic level, Islamabad should have used diplomacy and launched effective support for Kashmiri independent groups to compel India end its occupation of J&K. But, fragile economic and political predicament of Pakistan has encouraged New Delhi to seek a permanent occupation of J&K. It seems since 1948 till today, Pakistan because of back to back strategic failures has lost Kashmir for good.