Nearly three years after his government abolished Jammu and Kashmir’s special status under the Constitution, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday visited the state.   During the visit Modi launched a slew of development projects. He told Kashmiris the projects would improve their living standards.

Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said Modi’s visit was stage-managed. The External Affairs Ministry spokesman ticked him off with the now familiar riposte that Kashmir is an internal matter of India.

It is not unusual for public relations considerations to creep into political decision-making. But it will be wrong to dismiss the investment of Rs200 billion in various projects in Kashmir as a mere PR exercise.

What took Modi to J&K was not any Kashmir-specific event but National Panchayat Day celebrations.  The leader combined the launch of development schemes in Jammu and Kashmir with it. There are, of course, certain valid questions that can be raised about the decisions the government took with regard to Jammu and Kashmir and the manner in which it implemented them.

Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, born out of an agreement between the Indian leadership and the Kashmiri leadership at the time of Independence, was always an issue with the political group.

Such agreements cannot be deemed to be valid for all time. Later generations have an inherent right to seek changes in pre-existing agreements. In a democratic dispensation, it is best to bring about changes through fresh negotiations.

The Jana Sangh, and its successor, the Bharatiya Janata Party, had consistently demanded abolition of the special status.

The Modi regime went ahead with the necessary constitutional changes in the belief that the 2019 electoral verdict gave it the mandate. The government would have done well to hold discussions with the stakeholders before going ahead with the changes.

It moved the constitutional measures through Parliament after beefing up army presence and imposing a total lockdown on J&K.  The special status given to J&K in 1950 has now been done away with. But that has not put it on par with the other states.

J&K still stands apart from the other states. Earlier, it enjoyed certain privileges which were not available to other states. Now it suffers from certain disadvantages which no other state had been subjected to.  

For instance, J&K is the only state that has been deprived of its status as a state and reduced to the level of a union territory in 70 years of constitutional history. Home Minister Amit Shah, who piloted the measures to abolish J&K’s special status, had said the union territory would have a legislature and its statehood would be restored. However, no timeframe has been set for the purpose.

Until those steps are taken, the people of Jammu and Kashmir will remain deprived of the constitutional rights they are entitled to and did enjoy until three years ago.

The Supreme Court received several petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre’s J&K measures. The then Chief Justice, Ranjan Gogoi, who was fighting a personal battle of his own at the time, chose not to take them up. His immediate successor, Justice SA Bobde, too chose the same path. The present Chief Justice, Justice NV Ramana, has said he would set up a bench to consider the petitions.

In what appeared to be an attempt to test the electoral waters, the Modi regime held elections to district development councils in J&K. An alliance of Kashmir-based parties bagged the bulk of the seats. According to reports from J&K delimitation of constituencies is going on and when the process is completed elections to the Territorial Assembly will be held. Some parties of Kashmir have voiced fears of attempts at gerrymandering.  These fears must be dispelled.  

The centre must also seriously consider speeding up the process of restoring the democratic process in J&K. Specifically it must explore the possibility of restoring statehood before holding elections. Kashmir’s main parties have been part of the democratic process for decades and have been part of governments at the Centre too. They can still play a constructive role at state as well as national levels.