J&K Assembly’s statehood resolution seeks restoration of full statehood, while keeping the formal text separate from demands over Articles 370 and 35A.
Amendments by NC, PDP and Congress MLAs sought to bring autonomy and pre-2019 constitutional guarantees back into the debate, but were not pressed.
The BJP opposed linking statehood with autonomy and staged a walkout, leaving the question of whether the two issues can be separated at the centre of the political dispute.
After nearly four hours of heated exchanges, the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly on Monday adopted a fresh resolution urging the Centre to restore full statehood. The vote was less contentious than the argument behind it, which is whether statehood can be separated from autonomy. That distinction explains most of what happened on the floor.
Statehood Is Not Autonomy
The concept of statehood under the Indian constitution does not necessarily corroborate with autonomy. Statehood is about status: whether J&K is a full state with its own government powers, or a Union Territory (UT) whose elected government works under a Lieutenant Governor. Most states share a similar level of autonomy barring a few exceptions like Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and other North Eastern states which come under the special category status.
Autonomy is about the scope of power, meaning how far Parliament's laws apply and what constitutional protections the region has. Pre-2019 J&K had unmatched autonomy within the India federal system due to the existence of article 370. The Assembly's dispute is over whether restoring statehood should be tied to restoring the autonomy it had before 2019.
The Position Before August 2019
Article 370 limited the Union's reach. It rested on the Instrument of Accession, under which only defence, external affairs and communications were originally under the Centre. J&K had its own constitution and penal code, and Parliament needed the state legislature to ratify laws on most other Union and Concurrent list subjects. Article 35A, added by a 1954 Presidential Order, empowered the state to define permanent residents and gave them special rights and privileges.
What Changed In 2019
A new Presidential Order superseded the 1954 one, which effectively nullified 35A, and Article 370 was amended so that the entire Constitution applied to J&K. The Reorganisation Act then split the state into two Union Territories: J&K with a legislature, like Delhi and Puducherry, and Ladakh without one.
The Supreme Court upheld the abrogation in December 2023 but directed that statehood be restored at the earliest. That direction is why the statehood demand is widely shared even among parties that disagree about 370.
What The Resolution Actually Asks For
The text of the resolution is narrow. It says that, in addition to the Assembly's resolutions of 26 June 2000 and 6 November 2024, the House calls for the immediate and urgent restoration of full statehood and asks that the resolution be forwarded to the Centre. The 2000 resolution is the autonomy reference. It sought to restore the pre-1953 constitutional position and was rejected by the Union Cabinet under Vajpayee. The 2024 resolution, reports say, dealt with special status and constitutional guarantees.
Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said he deliberately kept Articles 370 and 35A out of the resolution so the BJP would have no pretext to disrupt the House, and that the demand is for the status J&K held before becoming a UT. His government's practical complaints concern UT rules. He asked why Revenue is outside its control, why Business Rules sent to the Centre are still unapproved after nearly two years, and why there is still no Advocate General.
How 370, 35A And Autonomy Resurfaced
The amendments to the resolution brought the excluded issues back. Ten amendments were submitted, five of them by ruling National Conference MLAs, with two independents and two PDP members also pressing for references to 370, 35A and autonomy. The wording varied:
NC's Tanvir Sadiq wanted the House to reaffirm its commitment to the constitutional guarantees in Articles 370 and 35A as they stood before 5 August 2019. While PDP's Waheed Para and Aga Syed Muntazir Mehdi sought autonomy plus 370 and 35A in their original form and a demand for the house to record anguish and disapproval of the unilateral measures taken from 5 August 2019 respectively.
Congress's Nizam ud Din Bhat proposed a reminder to the Centre of commitments it has made to the people of J&K.
Omar urged his colleagues to drop them, saying the resolution already invoked the 2000 autonomy resolution and that they had fallen into a BJP trap. Eventually, none of the amendments was reportedly pressed and the Speaker treated them as withdrawn.
Why It Remains Contested
For the BJP, the autonomy reference is the problem. Its members argued that statehood should not be linked to the autonomy debate. The party called the reference to autonomy and special status an insult to the Constitution and staged a walkout, after two BJP and two Congress MLAs were marshalled out. Its position is that Article 370 is settled law and that statehood is a separate matter for the Centre.
For the regional parties, the difficulty is that they can't drop the issue without paying for it. The NC manifesto promised to strive to restore 370 and 35A and statehood as before 5 August 2019, and to implement the 2000 autonomy resolution. Omar's opponents have accused him of dropping the demand for Article 370 to focus on statehood, and the PDP used the amendments to sharpen that charge. The NC's line is that it cannot disown its long-held position on the erstwhile state's constitutional rights.
The Centre's own stance adds another layer. Omar questioned what restoring statehood “at an appropriate time” means and asked for a timeline. He also argued that if statehood depends on militancy ending completely, the decision is effectively left to Islamabad rather than New Delhi. He said the demand is a matter of right and not charity.
