Ramiz Bhat
The J&K legislative assembly’s resolution to restore constitutional status was systematically weakened, reducing its potential political impact to a mere symbolic gesture. What could have been a powerful move was rendered ineffectual as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) skillfully maneuvered the Indian National Congress (INC) into clarifying its position on the resolution. This strategy solidified the BJP’s dominance in J&K’s political arena. The BJP now controls the narrative in Jammu by leveraging majoritarian support while fostering divisions among the opposition parties in the Valley. With a third of the legislative assembly under its influence, the BJP has secured significant control over the region’s political landscape.
For decades, Indian governments have used Kashmir as a tool to advance political agendas. Earlier administrations, particularly under the INC, presented Kashmir as a symbol of secularism, pluralism, and inclusivity. In contrast, the BJP transformed Kashmir into a metaphor for nationalism, integration, and decisive governance. While the methods differed, both parties adopted similar strategies. The INC systematically eroded Article 370, rendering it largely ineffective, whereas the BJP capitalized on this groundwork by abrogating it entirely and gaining significant political mileage. The BJP’s campaigns—whether setting a symbolic target of 370 parliamentary seats or using slogans like “Jo kaha, woh kiya” (What we said, we did)—centered heavily on Kashmir. Additionally, promises like reclaiming Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir underscored Kashmir’s centrality in the BJP’s national agenda.
The much-touted abrogation of Article 370 in 2019 overlooked the fact that the provision had already been systematically dismantled over decades. By 1975, the state constitution had been rendered ineffective as the legislature lost its power to amend it. In 1966, the elected head of state was replaced by a Union-appointed nominee, further centralizing control. By 1986, the extension of Article 249 of the Indian Constitution to J&K eliminated the state legislature’s residuary powers, leaving the state weaker than others. By the time Article 370 was formally abrogated, its core provisions were already hollowed out, with Article 35A—the last significant provision—frequently circumvented in practice.
In this context, the National Conference (NC) carefully crafted its resolution to avoid direct mentions of Articles 370 and 35A, instead opting for the broader term “special status.” While this vagueness invited criticism, it allowed room for negotiation. The resolution was a strategic attempt to create political leverage, but its success depended on unified support from Valley-centric parties. Unfortunately, the disintegration of the People’s Alliance for Gupkar Declaration (PAGD), once formed to advocate for J&K’s special status, fractured the consensus and weakened the resolution’s impact. What could have been a unifying election issue was undermined by infighting, petty rivalries, and a lack of coordination among regional parties. This discord left the BJP unchallenged in dominating the narrative.
Legally, such resolutions hold no enforceable authority, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Samta Andolan Samiti v. Union of India (March 2020). The Court clarified that resolutions by state legislatures are merely expressions of opinion without legal consequences, a view supported by parliamentary procedures. Despite their lack of legal standing, resolutions carry political weight, influencing public opinion and shaping political discourse. However, the NC’s resolution failed to achieve this potential due to internal conflicts and tactical missteps that prevented it from uniting the opposition.
The legislative proceedings surrounding the resolution further exposed the deep divisions in J&K’s political framework. Chaos ensued with parallel sessions, rival speakers, and public disputes among Valley-based parties. Instead of forming a united front, these parties engaged in public spats, undermining the resolution’s credibility. The BJP capitalized on this disarray, presenting it as evidence of Kashmir’s lack of consensus. At the same time, Jammu’s ideological alignment with the BJP highlighted the stark regional divide, complicating efforts for unified governance.
For J&K to emerge as a cohesive political entity, its legislature must prioritize constructive dialogue over performative politics. Restoring the state’s constitutional status will require a unified strategy, disciplined negotiation, and a long-term commitment to shared goals. Emotional rhetoric and individual rivalries must be replaced with pragmatic statecraft. The current state of disunity benefits those invested in maintaining the status quo. To counter this, J&K’s political leaders must rise above personal differences, collaborate on a shared vision, and focus on meaningful change. Only through collective effort can the Valley reclaim its political relevance and chart a path forward.
Ramiz Bhat can be reached at Ramizspeaks77@gmail.com
Views expressed are author’s own