Full statehood push exposes India’s fault lines in IIOJK Assembly: Report
2000 resolution reference, amendments revive pre-1953 status debate
Srinagar: The ongoing political storm in Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir has brought the territory’s unresolved political questions to the centre of proceedings in the Legislative Assembly, with a resolution seeking restoration of full statehood. The move triggered sharp exchanges between the ruling parties and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), followed by an unusual intervention by senior bureaucrats.
According to a report by Kashmir Media Service, the controversy began on September 25 when Chief Minister Omar Abdullah moved a resolution calling for the “immediate and urgent restoration of full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.” The resolution stated that it was in addition to two earlier resolutions passed by the Assembly on June 26, 2000, and November 6, 2024.
The reference to the 2000 resolution quickly became the central point of contention. That resolution, passed during Farooq Abdullah’s government, had sought restoration of the constitutional position that existed before August 9, 1953, when Jammu and Kashmir had its own prime minister and other distinct institutions.
The BJP objected strongly, arguing that the reference went beyond the demand for restoration of statehood. BJP legislators disrupted proceedings, entered the Well of the House and tore copies of the resolution. BJP MLA Sham Lal Sharma demanded action against the elected government and urged the Indian Home Minister to consider its dismissal.
The ruling side rejected the BJP’s interpretation. Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Choudhary opposed any move to dismiss the elected government or impose Lieutenant Governor’s rule, stressing that the government had been elected by the people. The National Conference also maintained that the present resolution sought only restoration of full statehood and did not replace or subsume the earlier resolutions.
NC Jammu President Rattan Lal Gupta said the 2000 resolution concerned the pre-1953 constitutional position, while the November 2024 resolution dealt with restoration of special status and constitutional guarantees. Former minister Ajay Kumar Sadhotra described full statehood as a “constitutional and democratic demand.” The party accused the BJP of creating confusion over the wording of the resolution.
The debate, however, broadened on September 28 when ten legislators moved amendments seeking explicit references to Articles 370 and 35A and the constitutional position that existed before August 5, 2019. Eight of the legislators were from the National Conference and its allies, while Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lawmakers Waheed Para and Aga Syed Muntazir Mehdi also proposed amendments.
One amendment moved by NC MLA Tanvir Sadiq sought to reaffirm the House’s commitment to restoration of the constitutional guarantees embodied in Articles 370 and 35A as they existed before August 5, 2019. Other legislators proposed references to autonomy and the measures taken after August 5, 2019.
The developments prompted another round of protests by BJP legislators, who opposed references to the pre-1953 position and the constitutional arrangements that existed before August 2019. BJP MLA R.S. Pathania also submitted a no-confidence notice against Assembly Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather.
The Assembly ultimately passed the statehood resolution on September 28 amid a BJP walkout. The passage came after heated exchanges over whether the House should merely seek restoration of statehood or also place on record demands concerning the territory’s former constitutional status.
An even more unusual development emerged around the same proceedings. Chief Secretary Atal Dulloo and Law Secretary Achal Sethi sent separate letters to the Assembly Secretariat seeking that the statehood resolution not be taken up, citing the matter as sub judice. The letters were sent three days after Omar Abdullah had moved the resolution and after the House had admitted it for consideration.
Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather questioned the intervention, saying he knew of no precedent for senior bureaucracy writing to the Assembly Secretariat in such a manner. Omar Abdullah, who also holds the Law portfolio, said he had no prior knowledge of the officials’ opinion and questioned how the bureaucracy could oppose a resolution moved by the Chief Minister without his knowledge.
The sequence of events has thus transformed what began as a resolution for restoration of full statehood into a much wider political and constitutional debate. The 2000 resolution has revived discussion of the pre-1953 position; the 2024 resolution has brought special status and constitutional guarantees back into the discourse; and the latest amendments have explicitly sought references to Articles 370 and 35A.
The controversy also highlights the unresolved tensions surrounding the present Union Territory arrangement imposed after August 2019. While the elected government and its allies describe restoration of statehood as a democratic demand, BJP legislators have opposed language that they interpret as seeking restoration of the pre-2019 constitutional order.
Against this backdrop, legal and political observers have viewed the repeated objections to references to the pre-1953 and pre-August 2019 arrangements as evidence of how sensitive the constitutional history of Jammu and Kashmir remains. The intervention by senior bureaucrats has added another dimension to the controversy, bringing into sharp focus the relationship between the elected Assembly and the administrative machinery in IIOJK.
The unfolding developments demonstrate that the demand for statehood cannot be viewed in isolation from the longer constitutional history of Jammu and Kashmir, including the Assembly’s earlier resolutions and the profound political dispute that followed the unilateral changes of August 2019. The latest Assembly confrontation has once again placed these questions at the heart of political discourse in IIOJK.
