Pawan K. Verma's column: Why is Jammu and Kashmir not being given full statehood?

I have just returned from a trip to Kashmir. While the valley is as beautiful as before, it also looks deserted due to the apathy of tourists after the Pahalgam attack. During my visit, I had the opportunity to interact with several Kashmiris. Among them were prominent personalities like Dr Karan Singh, Farooq Abdullah, former Supreme Court judges Sanjay Krishna Kaul, Vijay Dhar and Chief Minister Omar Abdullah. But the question on everyone's mind was: When will the full statehood of Jammu and Kashmir be restored? The present status of Jammu and Kashmir as a Union Territory is against both the federal spirit and the democratic nature of the Constitution. We should have no illusions that the Union Territory system is meant to limit the power of a democratically elected government. The idea of making a state like Jammu and Kashmir, which is important for its size, population and historical heritage, a Union Territory, is not only absurd, but it is also the first time in the last 75 years that an existing state has been made a Union Territory. To be fair, it is incomprehensible why the central government is postponing the restoration of full statehood. In 2019, when Article 370 was abrogated and Jammu and Kashmir was given Union Territory status, Home Minister Amit Shah had promised in Parliament that full statehood would be revived "at an appropriate time". In August 2023 too, the Centre had assured the Supreme Court that the status of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is temporary. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's aptly words were: "I assure that we are progressively moving towards making Jammu and Kashmir a full state. A five-member bench headed by the Chief Justice had directed in December 2023 that the full statehood of Jammu and Kashmir should be returned. For this, elections should be held by September 2024. The elections were held in September 2024. They were also conducted in a free and fair manner, with 60 per cent voter turnout. The National Conference got a clear majority in the 90-member House and Omar Abdullah became the Chief Minister. But the first resolution that the newly formed assembly passed unanimously was to demand the restoration of full statehood. And yet the Centre has maintained silence on the issue. On April 29, the Pahalgam attack took place. Every Kashmiri stood up fearlessly against the dastardly attack. Traders shut down markets, citizens held candlelight marches, wore black badges in mosques and the Valley's chief cleric, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, condemned the attack. All Kashmiris expressed their condolences. It was an unprecedented effort by Kashmiris to express solidarity against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. They were strongly against communal violence, which also hurt their employment, as tourism is a major source of income in Kashmir. This was the time when the central government should have initiated the process of restoring full statehood in view of the solidarity of Kashmiris in protest against the attack. Especially because Omar Abdullah can be trusted to work positively with the Centre. Omar Abdullah is not an irresponsible extremist. Instead, the Centre acted indiscriminately and started demolishing the houses of the relatives and neighbours of the suspected terrorists, in direct violation of the Supreme Court's directives. It also gradually ended the sentiment for support among Kashmiris after the Pahalgam attack. More than that, he found it humiliating that the chief minister he had chosen had no role to play in law and order. They were not even informed about the security operations. After all, the question is not whether Jammu and Kashmir will get full statehood again. The question is, why hasn't this been done yet? Because democratic India's strength lies not in retaining power for long, but in trusting its citizens. The process of restoring full statehood should have been started in view of the solidarity of Kashmiris in protest against the Pahalgam attack. Omar Abdullah can be trusted to work positively with the Centre. (This is the author's opinion)