Sheikh Younis Amin
August 5, 2019, was undoubtedly a watershed moment in the history of Jammu and Kashmir. Irrespective of how one viewed the constitutional changes introduced on that day, there was no doubt that the political and administrative landscape of Jammu and Kashmir had fundamentally changed. The applicability of the Union’s laws and institutions was substantially altered, and the old framework of special constitutional arrangements came to an end.
But the real test of any political transition is not merely the decision itself. It is what follows the promises made, the expectations created and, above all, the trust that develops between the people and the institutions of the State.
In the years that followed August 5, there was considerable uncertainty within the political leadership of Jammu and Kashmir. That uncertainty was neither unexpected nor difficult to understand. Political parties and leaders were attempting to comprehend a completely transformed political environment.
What was more significant, however, was the response of the people.
After years of violence, shutdowns, political uncertainty and disruption, a large section of the people chose a different path. They chose participation over boycott, ballots over confrontation and democratic engagement over political alienation.
The people effectively offered New Delhi an olive branch.
That participation acquired even greater significance when Jammu and Kashmir went through the electoral process. People came out to vote in substantial numbers, demonstrating that the democratic process still possessed enormous legitimacy among the people.
This participation was not merely about electing representatives. It was also a statement of faith in democratic institutions.
And that is precisely why the question of Statehood has acquired such importance.
The restoration of Statehood was publicly articulated by the Union leadership as a commitment. The sequence was broadly understood as delimitation, elections and, thereafter, restoration of Statehood. The first two stages were undertaken. The third remains pending.
For the people of Jammu and Kashmir, Statehood is therefore not simply an administrative arrangement. It has become intertwined with the credibility of the political commitments made to them.
The issue is not whether one political party wins or loses. It is not whether a particular regional party is liked or disliked by New Delhi. It is not even about the political preferences of the government at the Centre.
The larger question is much more fundamental :
What value does a democratic mandate carry if the institutions above it do not appear willing to honour the political expectations created around that mandate?
If people participate in elections in large numbers and elect a government of their choice, the legitimacy of that mandate cannot depend upon whether the political outcome is convenient for one side or another.
Democracy is meaningful precisely because the people have the right to choose even when the choice is not the choice that those in power might have preferred.
This is where the question of Statehood becomes a question of democratic credibility.
People may reasonably ask: If they participate in the democratic process, express their political preferences and elect representatives, will their mandate be respected in its entirety?
They may ask: Is participation in elections valued only when the outcome is politically convenient?
And perhaps the most important question is this: If commitments made publicly by the highest constitutional and political authorities are not implemented within a reasonable timeframe, what happens to public faith in those commitments?
These questions should not be dismissed as political rhetoric. They go to the heart of democratic legitimacy.
The issue becomes even more sensitive because Jammu and Kashmir has historically faced a deep trust deficit. Rebuilding that trust requires consistency between words and actions. Every democratic institution must understand that credibility is not built merely by conducting elections. It is built when citizens see that their participation produces meaningful institutional consequences.
The people who voted in Jammu and Kashmir did not vote against the nation. Participation in elections cannot be equated with disloyalty merely because the electorate chose parties with which some sections may disagree.
In fact, the very essence of democracy is that citizens are free to choose among competing political alternatives within the constitutional framework.
If a government elected through that process is viewed as insufficiently representative of the national mainstream merely because it is a regional political formation, that creates an uncomfortable question about the meaning of electoral choice itself.
The larger danger is not limited to Jammu and Kashmir.
When democratic institutions become disconnected from the mandate of the people, distrust begins to grow. When commitments made from the highest political platforms remain unfulfilled, people begin to question the value of political assurances. When bureaucratic or administrative structures appear stronger than elected institutions, the balance between representative government and administration becomes a matter of concern.
And institutions, once weakened in one part of the country, cannot always remain insulated from the consequences elsewhere.
Democracy does not survive merely because elections are held.
It survives when people believe that their vote matters, their representatives matter, parliamentary commitments matter and institutions are capable of translating political assurances into action.
That is why the question of restoration of Statehood in Jammu and Kashmir deserves to be viewed not merely through the lens of administrative restructuring, but through the larger lens of democratic credibility.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir participated in the democratic process. They exercised their franchise. They accepted the ballot as the legitimate instrument for political expression.
The responsibility now lies with the institutions of governance to ensure that this faith in democracy is strengthened rather than weakened.
Because the credibility of democracy ultimately rests on a simple principle :
When citizens are asked to trust the democratic process, the institutions of the State must give them reasons to continue trusting it.
And when Parliament speaks, governance must listen not merely because a promise was made, but because the credibility of democratic institutions depends upon the relationship between what is said, what is promised and what is ultimately delivered.
Sheikh Younis Amin hailing from Baramulla ca be reached at sheikhyounis123@gmail.com
