By Tehelka Web Desk
SRINAGAR, SEP 29: The Jammu and Kashmir Assembly’s latest resolution seeking the “immediate and urgent restoration of full statehood” has reopened a political debate that goes back more than two decades.
The resolution, moved by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and passed on September 28, 2026, specifically says it is “in addition to” resolutions adopted by the Assembly in June 2000 and November 2024. That reference has become the main point of contention between the National Conference-led government and the BJP.
To understand the politics, it is necessary to look at what each resolution sought, and what happened after it was passed.
2000: The autonomy resolution
The first resolution was passed on June 26, 2000, when Farooq Abdullah was chief minister. It endorsed the recommendations of the State Autonomy Committee and called for Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional relationship with New Delhi to be restored to the position that existed before 1953.
The demand went considerably beyond administrative devolution. The pre-1953 arrangement envisaged a much more limited Union jurisdiction over Jammu and Kashmir, with defence, foreign affairs and communications among the principal subjects with New Delhi.
The resolution was subsequently rejected by the Union Cabinet headed by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. It therefore remained a political resolution of the state legislature; it did not result in any constitutional change.
That slice of history is central to the BJP’s objection today. Leader of Opposition, Sunil Sharma has argued that the 2000 autonomy demand and the current demand for statehood are separate issues and accused Omar Abdullah of bringing the earlier position back into the debate.
2019 changed the question
The political and constitutional context changed fundamentally in August 2019, when the special status under Article 370 was ended and the former state was reorganised into the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
The Supreme Court, in its December 2023 judgment, upheld the Union government’s decision on Article 370. It also noted the Centre’s undertaking regarding restoration of statehood and directed that elections to the Legislative Assembly be held by September 30, 2024.
That created a new political focus: whether Jammu and Kashmir would regain statehood, and whether its earlier constitutional position would also be sought.
2024: Special status enters the new Assembly
After elections were held in 2024, the newly elected Assembly passed a resolution on November 6 seeking dialogue with the Government of India for restoration of “special status and constitutional guarantees” and asking that constitutional mechanisms be worked out for restoring them.
It was deliberately different from the 2000 resolution. Rather than explicitly demanding a return to the pre-1953 arrangement, it sought dialogue and a constitutional mechanism for addressing the changes made after 2019.
The resolution had no legal power to restore Article 370 or any other provision. Like the 2000 resolution, its immediate effect was political: it formally recorded the elected Assembly’s position.
2026: Statehood becomes the immediate demand
The latest resolution changes the emphasis again.
Omar Abdullah’s September 2026 resolution calls for the “immediate and urgent restoration of full statehood” and says it should be forwarded to the Government of India. It also refers to both the 2000 and 2024 resolutions.
The BJP says it supports statehood but objects to references that connect the latest demand with the earlier autonomy and special-status positions. During the debate, several members sought amendments explicitly mentioning Article 370, Article 35A and autonomy; those proposals became another source of confrontation.
Omar’s position, however, has been that the latest resolution is principally about statehood and that mentioning the earlier resolutions does not itself restore or re-enact them.
So what happens to such resolutions?
The key point is that an Assembly resolution is not the same as legislation. It expresses the political position of the House but does not, by itself, amend the Constitution, restore statehood or compel the Government of India to act.
The 2000 resolution demonstrated this most clearly: the Assembly passed it, but the Centre rejected it.
The 2024 resolution similarly recorded the position of the elected House but did not alter the constitutional framework created after 2019.
The 2026 resolution will now be sent to New Delhi. Its political significance will depend on the response of the Union government and on any subsequent constitutional or legislative action.
In that sense, the three resolutions represent three stages of the Kashmir debate: autonomy in 2000, special status in 2024, and statehood in 2026. Their common thread is that each records the elected Assembly’s position at a particular moment; none, by itself, changes Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional status.
