The Narendra Modi administration amended the Constitution in August 2019 to abolish the special status Jammu and Kashmir had enjoyed under it. The stated objective was to bring the state on par with the rest of India.

Ironically, two and a half years later, J&K still stands apart from the rest of India, albeit in a different way. It is the only large constituent of the Union of India which does not have the democratic rights available to citizens in other large units.

This situation is the result of certain other changes made along with abolition of the special status.

The Buddhist-majority Ladakh region was separated from J&K. Both Ladakh and J&K were made Union Territories.

UTs do not have the same powers as states. Some of them have elected Assemblies but they do not have the same powers as state Assemblies.  

Home Minister Amit Shah, who piloted the measures to make changes in the constitutional provisions, said the Union Territory of J&K will have an elected Assembly and eventually it will be granted statehood. J&K will be on par with the other states only when these steps are taken.  But the government has set no timeframe for taking these steps.

Abolition of J&K’s special status was a demand of the hardliners’ camp since the days of the Jana Sangh, predecessor of the Bharatiya Janata Party.  It figured in successive election manifestoes of JS and BJP.

However, not everybody is convinced that the BJP’s 2014 and 2019 election victories amounted to a mandate to take away J&K’s special status, which arose from a commitment Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had made to the people of J&K when the princely state joined the Indian Union.

Assuming the BJP had a mandate, democratic propriety demanded that the government hold consultations with the people of J&K, the main stakeholders, before pushing   the measures through Parliament.

But it held no consultations even with the People’s Democratic Party, the BJP’s partner in J&K’s last elected government, headed by Ms Mehbooba Mufti.

The PDP-BJP coalition was, of course, a marriage of convenience. The way Muslim-majority Kashmir and Hindu-majority Jammu voted in the last Assembly elections had left the two parties with no choice other than working together.

After the collapse of the coalition government, the state was under President’s rule. The Centre put the region under increased army vigil and imposed a total lockdown, including suspension of  

Internet services, ahead of the meeting of Parliament to amend the relevant provisions of the Constitution.

Considering that J&K has been a scene of terrorist activity by both home-grown and foreign-based groups for years, these steps can be seen as precautionary measures.

Amit Shah told Parliament that the changes the government was making would wipe out terrorism.

J&K Lt-Governor Manoj Sinha claims terrorism is ending. But data in the public realm does not fully support his claim.

Some 70 members of the Union Council of Ministers visited J&K in batches during September and October last year. If the ministerial tourism was conceived as a public relations exercise, it did not get much traction.

Apparently there has been a decline in acts of terrorism. However, it is too early to conclude that it is on the way out.

Ground reports indicate a change of tactics by insurgent groups. Now there are more targeted killing of civilians, calculated to create social discord. The selected targets are migrant workers.

Apart from creating fear psychosis, deterring Kashmiri Pandits who had moved to Jammu and Delhi may also be an objective of the new tactics.

The district development elections, held in December 2020, were expected to be followed by the Assembly elections. But the government shied away, as the Kashmir parties upset its calculations.

The time has come for the Modi regime to give serious thought to early implementation of the promise to hold elections and restore statehood. It will be a step which will help, and not hinder, forward movement.

Disaffection among sections of J&K’s population is not a new phenomenon.  A look-back will show that, although the electoral process was often vitiated by malpractices, the governments that came up through the process were able to help contain disaffection.