​Fulfil the promise: On restoring Statehood to Jammu and Kashmir

The editorial highlights a critical issue of asymmetric federalism and democratic representation in India. The current status of Jammu and Kashmir as a Union Territory, despite having an elected legislature, creates a significant power imbalance. The elected government is subordinate to the unelected Lieutenant Governor (LG), who wields extensive control over crucial domains like the bureaucracy and police, effectively functioning under the direct control of the Union government. This arrangement contradicts the principles of representative democracy and decentralization. The delay in restoring statehood, despite assurances given to the Supreme Court of India and Parliament, raises questions about the Union government's commitment to fulfilling its constitutional obligations and respecting the mandate of the people. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which downgraded the state to a UT, remains a focal point of this ongoing debate.

The situation in J&K underscores the challenges of governance in a region transitioning from conflict and political restructuring. The editorial argues that empowering elected local leaders is crucial for effective governance, particularly in addressing local grievances and preventing the alienation that can fuel militancy. The retention of UT status centralizes power and limits the ability of the elected government to respond effectively to the needs of the people. This approach, prioritizing direct control from New Delhi, can lead to a disconnect between the administration and the citizens, hindering the establishment of trust and long-term stability. The political arithmetic and the recent Delimitation Commission exercise in J&K further complicate the governance landscape, as they are perceived by some as attempts to alter the political dynamics before restoring statehood.

The Union government's primary rationale for delaying statehood is "security," citing incidents like the Pahalgam attack and cross-border terrorism. However, the editorial counters this by arguing that security concerns should not preclude democratic empowerment. In fact, a politically enfranchised population with a responsive local government is often more resilient against extremist ideologies and external provocations. The historical context of the Kashmir Valley suggests that political alienation has been a significant driver of militancy. Therefore, treating border regions primarily through a security prism, while neglecting political rights, can be counterproductive and deepen instability. The management of internal security in J&K requires a delicate balance between robust counter-terrorism measures and the restoration of normal democratic processes.