Political dimensions of Omar’s J-K statehood signature campaign | Capital Beat

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has announced a large-scale signature drive across the Union Territory to demand the restoration of statehood. He will present the campaign’s outcome before the Supreme Court, which is currently hearing petitions on the matter. The move comes after the Solicitor General sought eight weeks to respond to the court, a delay that has further deepened frustration among political circles in the region. In this episode of Capital Beat, Neelu Vyas of The Federal talks to Prof Radha Kumar, former interlocutor for Jammu and Kashmir, to unpack the political, constitutional, and security dimensions behind the campaign.

The announcement follows Omar Abdullah’s Independence Day address at Bakshi Stadium, where he criticised the Supreme Court’s remarks linking the Pahalgam terror attack to the question of statehood. He stressed that the people of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be punished for a crime committed by foreign terrorists.

Abdullah declared that his party would use the eight-week window to go door-to-door across all 90 Assembly constituencies. “From today, we will use these eight weeks to go door-to-door in all 90 assembly segments for a signature campaign on the restoration of statehood. If people are not ready to sign the document, I will accept the defeat,” he said.

Security lapses and statehood demand

Investigations into the Pahalgam attack have established that it was carried out by foreign terrorists, a fact that has raised questions about the Supreme Court’s reasoning. Critics argue that linking a terror strike to statehood unfairly targets elected representatives who had no role in security failures.

Prof Radha Kumar noted that security in the region has always been under the control of the Union administration and not elected governments. She highlighted that the Lieutenant Governor and the Union Home Ministry were solely responsible for security arrangements, including intelligence oversight, before the Pahalgam incident.

“The elected administration has nothing to do with this failure. They were not even invited to the security reviews conducted by the Home Minister and the Lieutenant Governor,” Kumar observed.

History of security control

Kumar drew parallels with earlier incidents, pointing to Pulwama in 2019, where clear intelligence warnings were ignored. She recalled that casualties had significantly fallen between 2009 and 2013, during Omar’s earlier term as the chief minister, when the state and Union governments worked together through a unified command structure.

In contrast, she explained, the Union Territory system has bypassed elected representatives, leading to weak intelligence gathering and poor coordination. This has fuelled growing resentment, as democratic institutions remain sidelined.

Omar Abdullah, in his recent public remarks, questioned why the restoration of statehood was being tied to terrorist violence. “Will the killers of Pahalgam and their masters in the neighbouring country decide whether we will be a state?” he asked.

Governance structure under criticism

Omar also voiced his frustration with the current dual system of governance, describing it as ineffective and designed to fail. He argued that the Lieutenant Governor’s sweeping powers under the Reorganisation Act and the 2024 transaction of business rules have left elected officials powerless.

He compared the situation to “tying the horse’s front legs and then asking it to run,” pointing out that even cabinet decisions were being blocked. The chief minister admitted that the system had forced him to question why he contested elections under such limited authority.

Kumar supported this assessment, pointing to the experience of Delhi’s hybrid model, where powers were steadily concentrated with the Lieutenant Governor despite Supreme Court interventions. She noted that Jammu and Kashmir faces a similar erosion of democratic authority.

Constitutional questions before the court

The upcoming Supreme Court hearings are expected to focus on the constitutional questions surrounding the Reorganisation Act. Kumar stressed that Articles 1 and 3 of the Constitution do not provide for the demotion of a full-fledged state into Union territories.

She explained that Article 1 defines India as a union of states, making Jammu and Kashmir a constituent member of the federation. Article 3 allows for the carving of Union territories out of parts of states, but does not contemplate converting an entire state.

These unresolved constitutional issues, Kumar argued, strike at the core of Indian federalism and could set precedents affecting other states if left unaddressed.

Public response and political divides

The signature campaign has drawn mixed reactions within Jammu and Kashmir. Supporters view it as an important democratic exercise in a region where most political expression has been suppressed since 2019.

The campaign has also been described as a symbolic referendum on statehood, amplifying public demand for the restoration of rights. Large sections of civil society, including traders and industrialists, had earlier organised protests and demonstrations to reject the motives of militant groups.

At the same time, leaders like Sajjad Lone have condemned the campaign as political theatrics, suggesting instead that the Assembly pass a resolution on statehood. Kumar, however, dismissed this criticism as misplaced, describing the signature drive as a welcome assertion of democratic representation.

The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.