Examiner Bureau | Srinagar:
The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly on Monday passed a resolution calling upon the Government of India to immediately and urgently restore full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, amid a prolonged confrontation between the ruling benches and BJP legislators over references to the erstwhile state’s constitutional position, autonomy and Articles 370 and 35A.
Chief Minister Omar Abdullah had moved the resolution on September 25. The House deferred its consideration after several members sought an opportunity to speak on the issue. It was taken up for discussion on Monday after the listed business was completed.
The resolution states: “In addition to the resolutions passed by this House on 26 June 2000 and 6 November 2024, the House calls upon the Government of India for the immediate and urgent restoration of full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir and resolves that this resolution be forwarded to the Government of India.”
The reference to the Assembly’s June 26, 2000 resolution, which had sought restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s pre-1953 constitutional position, emerged as the principal point of contention for the BJP. The resolution also refers to the House’s November 6, 2024 resolution.
Leader of Opposition Sunil Sharma said the BJP was not opposed to a discussion on restoration of statehood but objected to what he described as references going beyond the statehood issue.
Sharma said political differences should not prevent the House from discussing matters concerning Jammu and Kashmir and maintained that the opposition was not required to oppose every government proposal.
“Sometimes it is very difficult to come to a common consensus. It is not necessary that we always support the opposition. We also want a positive discussion here, especially when it comes to the state,” Sharma said.
He, however, opposed references to Jammu and Kashmir’s pre-1953 constitutional position and questioned the inclusion of the 2000 autonomy resolution in the statehood measure. Sharma said the BJP had opposed that resolution when it was brought before the Assembly and maintained that such references were unacceptable to his party within the constitutional framework of India.
The BJP has maintained that it supports restoration of full statehood but does not agree with linking the demand to Article 370, Article 35A or the 2000 autonomy resolution.
The debate also brought a series of amendments to the original resolution. Ten amendments were submitted, several of which sought to widen the resolution by explicitly referring to the restoration of Articles 370 and 35A, autonomy and the constitutional protections that existed before August 5, 2019.
Five National Conference legislators—Javid Hassan Baig, Tanvir Sadiq, Ajaz Ahmad Jan, Altaf Ahmad Wani and Hilal Ahmad Lone—moved amendments seeking references to Articles 370 and 35A.
PDP MLA Waheed-ur-Rehman Para also proposed an amendment seeking restoration of autonomy along with Articles 370 and 35A in their original form. Congress legislator Nizam-ud-din Bhat moved another amendment seeking an addition referring to commitments made by the Government of India at various forums and to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
The amendments intensified the disagreement over whether the resolution should remain confined to restoration of statehood or also address Jammu and Kashmir’s pre-August 5, 2019 constitutional position.
The confrontation began even before the substantive discussion gathered pace. BJP MLA R.S. Pathania informed the House that the BJP had submitted a notice seeking the removal of Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather, questioning whether the Speaker could continue to preside while such a motion was pending.
According to reports, Rather said the notice had been submitted in writing and would have to be dealt with according to the prescribed procedure, including the required notice period. The Speaker continued with the proceedings.
BJP legislators subsequently entered the Well of the House and raised slogans, protesting the wording and handling of the statehood resolution. Reports said members also tore business papers and conducted mock proceedings during the disruption.
The debate saw sharp exchanges between the treasury and opposition benches.
While the BJP argued that references to autonomy and the pre-1953 constitutional position should not form part of a resolution seeking restoration of statehood, members from the ruling side defended the broader political context of the resolution.
Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Kumar Choudhary questioned the argument that Jammu and Kashmir’s status as a border region should prevent demands for restoration of statehood and referred to other border states.
Congress legislator Nizam-ud-din Bhat also criticised the BJP during the debate, accusing it of “jingoism” and “subverting the Constitution”, while arguing that the Centre should fulfil its commitments regarding restoration of statehood. These were statements made during the political debate and reflected the position of the respective legislator.
As the discussion progressed, BJP legislators continued their protest and eventually staged a walkout from the House before the resolution was put through.
The resolution was subsequently passed by a majority of members present, with the BJP absent following its walkout. Reports said the measure was passed with references to autonomy and special status remaining part of the wider debate around the resolution.
The final resolution calls specifically for the “immediate and urgent restoration of full statehood” and directs that it be forwarded to the Government of India.
The resolution comes more than seven years after the erstwhile state was reorganised in August 2019 into the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh following the Centre’s decision on Article 370. The Supreme Court subsequently upheld the constitutional changes and directed that statehood for Jammu and Kashmir be restored at the earliest, while elections were held in the Union Territory in 2024.
The present Assembly’s resolution is the latest legislative demand for restoration of statehood. However, Monday’s proceedings also exposed a clear divide over whether the demand should be considered separately from questions concerning Jammu and Kashmir’s former special constitutional status.
The 2000 resolution referred to in the latest measure had sought restoration of the erstwhile state’s pre-1953 constitutional position and was rejected by the Centre. The November 6, 2024 resolution, meanwhile, had called for dialogue with representatives of Jammu and Kashmir for restoration of its special status.
With the resolution now passed, it is to be forwarded to the Government of India. The Assembly was adjourned after completion of the day’s business and is scheduled to meet again on Tuesday.
