Avinash Azad
The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly on Monday passed Chief Minister (CM), Omar Abdullah’s resolution seeking the immediate restoration of full statehood to the Union Territory, amid strong protests and a walkout by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislators.
The resolution calls upon the Government of India to restore Jammu and Kashmir’s full statehood at the earliest. It was moved as an addition to earlier resolutions passed by the House, including the June 26, 2000 resolution and the resolution adopted on November 6, 2024.
The reference to the 2000 autonomy resolution triggered fierce opposition from BJP members, who accused the government of attempting to reopen the autonomy and Article 370 debate. BJP legislators entered the Well of the House, raised slogans and disrupted proceedings before eventually walking out. The BJP also moved a motion seeking the removal of Assembly Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather, citing his handling of the proceedings.
Responding to the protests, Omar Abdullah accused the BJP of deliberately conflating the demand for statehood with issues such as Article 370 and autonomy. He urged members who had proposed amendments to the resolution not to fall into what he described as a political trap.
“Show me where this resolution asks anybody to vote for Article 370 or the 35th Amendment. This resolution seeks only the restoration of statehood,” Abdullah said during the debate.
He said the demand was neither anti-national nor a challenge to the constitutional position of the Union government. “Show me a single anti-national word in this resolution,” the CM said.
Abdullah also argued that references to earlier Assembly resolutions did not replace or override the present demand for statehood. “Our friends should not say that we have given up on them. Those resolutions remain in place. This resolution neither replaces nor ignores them; it is an addition to them,” he said.
The CM reminded the Centre of assurances made after the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status in August 2019. He said the sequence of delimitation, elections and restoration of statehood had been presented as part of the roadmap for Jammu and Kashmir.
“Delimitation was carried out. Elections were held in 2024. People voted without any coercion. But the third step of the promise—restoration of statehood—has not been fulfilled,” Abdullah said. Questioning the delay, he said the Centre had repeatedly linked the return of statehood to improved security conditions. “If statehood is to depend on the end of militancy, then the decision will effectively depend on Pakistan,” Abdullah said, arguing that Jammu and Kashmir could not be made responsible for developments beyond its control.
He further questioned whether the people of Jammu and Kashmir needed to wait indefinitely for the restoration of a status that, according to him, had been promised by the Centre. “Can’t our own Prime Minister give us statehood?” Abdullah asked while responding to the BJP’s objections during the debate.
Abdullah said statehood was not a demand limited to the ruling National Conference or any particular political family. He described it as an issue concerning the constitutional, administrative and political rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
“Statehood is not about the government or my family. It is about Jammu and Kashmir. That is why we brought it to the House, so that a united voice can go to the Centre,” he said. The CM maintained that restoration of statehood would strengthen administrative accountability and allow the elected government to exercise greater authority over matters affecting the people.
“Statehood is neither of this side nor that side. It is not only of this House. We were promised a full state, and we want a full state back. We do not want a downgraded or half-hearted arrangement,” he said.
Omar has alleged that delays in processing crucial government files are hampering the functioning of his government, despite its readiness to implement key decisions. He pointed out that the file concerning the appointment of the Advocate General, a key constitutional position, remains unprocessed, while proposals for rationalising reservation quotas and regularising thousands of daily-wage workers continue to await clearance.
He also raised concerns over funding for the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS), alleging that although his office has extended financial support, the related file has not reached the Health Minister. He suggested that such delays were obstructing the implementation of his government’s initiatives and affecting the normal functioning of key departments.
The BJP opposed the resolution primarily because it mentioned the Assembly’s 2000 autonomy resolution, which had sought the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s pre-1953 constitutional position. BJP legislators argued that the statehood demand should have been dealt with separately and objected to any reference that could be interpreted as reopening the autonomy issue.
The protests led to repeated disruptions, slogan-shouting and heated exchanges between members of the treasury and Opposition benches. Despite the uproar, the Speaker allowed the debate to proceed and the resolution was put to a vote. The resolution was passed with the support of the PDP, ruling National Conference and its allies, including the Congress, while the BJP opposed it and walked out of the House.
