The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly’s resolution passed on Wednesday (November 6, 2024), has left many questioning its true intent and the future direction of the Union Territory’s constitutional status.
Moved by Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Kumar Choudhary, the resolution expresses concern over the removal of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and constitutional guarantees but curiously avoids direct condemnation of the 2019 revocation of Article 370 and the laws enacted through Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019.
While the resolution reaffirms the importance of the J&K’s unique identity, culture, and rights, it stops short of explicitly mentioning Article 370, the very constitutional provision that was abrogated in August 2019, ending Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy.
Instead, the resolution calls for dialogue with the Government of India to explore the possibility of restoring “special status” and the constitutional guarantees. It also states that any restoration process must balance national unity with the aspirations of Jammu and Kashmir’s people.
The resolution lacks clarity, particularly with the term “restoration,” which is used without specifying whether it aims for a return to the pre-2019 status quo or a more limited form of autonomy. This ambiguity allows for varied interpretations and raises questions about the Assembly’s actual stance.
Unlike previous motion that directly challenged the revocation, this resolution avoids confronting the core issue—the complete reversal of Article 370’s abrogation.
This cautious approach stands in stark contrast to the resolution brought by Waheed Para of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) earlier on first day of the session. The PDP’s motion was direct and unequivocal, explicitly opposing the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and demanding the complete rescinding of the J&K Reorganization Act.
The PDP resolution also sought the restoration of all constitutional guarantees in their “original, pristine form.”
The fresh J&K’s Assembly’s resolution, therefore, raises questions about its true political intent. Is it a strategic diplomatic move aimed at opening channels for dialogue with the central government, or is it a softer, more politically palatable stance that avoids confronting the central government’s decisions directly?
Its ambiguity contrasts sharply with the PDP’s firm position, leaving wondering whether the Assembly is seeking a measured compromise or simply retreating from a more vocal opposition.
Without explicitly calling for the reversal of 2019’s constitutional changes, the resolution may end up being seen as a diluted message—one that still expresses concern but lacks the clarity and force needed to challenge the status quo.
