3 min readJul 28, 2026 11:32 AM IST
First published on: Jul 28, 2026 at 06:26 AM IST
One of the unintended consequences of August 5, 2019 has been the tendency to view every political demand in Jammu and Kashmir through the prism of Article 370. This has created a false binary: That demanding the restoration of statehood somehow dilutes, postpones, or compromises the larger question of restoring the constitutional position that existed before 2019.
Statehood and Article 370 are not competing objectives. They address two different questions. Article 370 concerns the constitutional relationship between J&K and the Union of India. Statehood concerns the basic architecture of democratic equality — the right of the people to govern themselves through their elected representatives, exercising authority on a basis equal to that enjoyed by the people of other states. Conflating the two only benefits those comfortable with the present uncertainty.
In the current political circumstances, expecting the BJP-led Centre to reverse its own decision on Article 370 is not a realistic assessment. Statehood, however, is a different matter. There is no ambiguity regarding the restoration of statehood. The Union government has repeatedly committed to it. The Prime Minister has spoken about it, and the Union Home Minister has reiterated the assurance both inside Parliament and before the Supreme Court.
The question today is not whether statehood should be restored, but why it continues to be delayed. The 2024 Assembly elections strengthened the case for its restoration by demonstrating the people’s enduring commitment to democratic processes, despite a history of deep scepticism.
The election marked the return of an elected government after years of direct central rule. Yet, restoring an Assembly without restoring statehood has created an unusual democratic setup: Elected representatives are responsible before the people, while crucial executive powers remain outside their control. This weakens the link between responsibility and accountability and ultimately shakes the foundations of Indian democracy. A democracy cannot function effectively when authority and accountability are separated. A government that answers to the people must possess the powers necessary to govern. Otherwise, elections risk becoming exercises in representation without real responsibility.
Constitutional struggles are rarely settled in a single moment. They evolve over years and sometimes decades. But that doesn’t mean democratic rights and effective governance must remain suspended until then. Demanding statehood is not an endorsement of the decisions of 2019. Nor does it mean abandoning the demand for the restoration of constitutional guarantees to the people of J&K.
History shows that political movements in constitutional democracy have advanced through incremental gains without surrendering larger aspirations. Securing one democratic right does not prevent the pursuit of another. It creates the space required to pursue larger constitutional questions.
Therefore, the demand for statehood is about ensuring that elected representatives have the authority to govern and that those exercising power remain accountable to the people. And the debate over Article 370 cannot become an excuse for prolonging a democratic deficit that affects people every day. Statehood is not the end of the political journey. It is the foundation upon which every future political and constitutional aspiration stands.
The writer is media panellist, Jammu & Kashmir National Conference
In the current political circumstances, expecting the BJP-led Centre to reverse its own decision on Article 370 is not a realistic assessment. (PTI/File Photo) 
Share
