On September 28, 2026, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah delivered a passionate address to the legislative assembly regarding a formal resolution for the restoration of statehood in Jammu and Kashmir. With the BJP out of the House and the bureaucracy opposing the idea, it was passed. Here is the text of the speech:
I knew that our friends standing in front of us here would not be happy with this resolution. Their sole effort would be to somehow disrupt the House so that they would not have to vote on this resolution.
Therefore, we prepared this resolution very thoughtfully. We did not want anything to be included in this resolution that the BJP could use as an excuse to disturb the House.
For the last two days, they have been claiming that we are asking them to vote on Article 370, Article 35A, or autonomy.
Mr Speaker, you have read the resolution, and I have read it too. There are some capable lawyers among their colleagues here. Let them read the resolution and tell us where in it we are asking them to vote on Article 370, where we are asking for a vote on Article 35A, or where we are asking for a vote on special status.
We are asking for a vote on statehood.
I regret to say that some of my friends and colleagues sitting here have also somehow fallen into their trap.
When they try to attach amendments regarding Article 370 and Article 35A to this resolution, it gives these people an excuse to oppose it.
The House has already passed a resolution for the special status of Jammu and Kashmir not once, but twice, once during the time of Dr Farooq Abdullah in the year 2000.
I feel a bit sorry for some colleagues here because they had a close connection with that 2000 resolution, but today they are trying to disown what they themselves did.
Anyway, it happens.
After that, as soon as our government was formed, we had a resolution passed in this very House on special status and constitutional guarantees. What does special status mean? That which other states do not have, which we ought to have.
What more do we need than this?
We tell the Centre to restore to us the status we had compared to other states, which others do not have.
So, after stating that, there is no need for any new amendment or change in this resolution.
Therefore, first of all, I would ask those colleagues: please do not press those amendments or place too much emphasis on them, because those amendments give these people a direct excuse to vote against this resolution.
Now, why was this resolution needed?
We have waited for two years. For two years, we waited for the Central Government to fulfil its promise.
Earlier, our colleague Irfan Hafiz Lone read out that Supreme Court judgment before this House, in which the Supreme Court clearly directed the Central Government, stating that after the elections, at the earliest, as soon as possible—meaning as quickly as possible—Jammu and Kashmir should be given back statehood.
Tell me, Mr Speaker, in which English dictionary does “as soon as possible” mean two years? In which English dictionary does “at the earliest possible” mean two years? And even after two years, there is no clarity on when.
I repeatedly ask the Central Government: at least tell us, when you say “at an appropriate time”, when will the time be to weigh this “appropriate time”?
By what measure will we determine that we have reached the “appropriate time”?
Give us an account.
Are you linking this to militancy? Are you saying that statehood will not return until the guns in Jammu and Kashmir fall silent?
Because if you are saying that statehood will not return until militancy ends in Jammu and Kashmir, then the decision regarding Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood will not be made in New Delhi; it will be made in Islamabad.
Because our Central Government repeatedly says that militancy originated from Pakistan. Pakistan launched the attacks in Pahalgam, Uri and Pulwama, and ran militancy here for 35 years.
So, when you say that statehood will be granted only when the guns fall silent, you are leaving this decision to Pakistan as to when they will silence the guns and when you will restore statehood to us.
So, are we to accept that the decision to restore our statehood will not be made by our own government?
Have we decided that our Prime Minister will not grant us Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, and that this decision will be made in another country?
If this is what these people have decided, it is deeply regrettable, because we have always believed that if this decision is to be made anywhere, it will be made in New Delhi.
This decision will not be made anywhere else, but these people have exported that decision from here.
Then they claim that we make excuses regarding statehood.
After all, if their intention was that they did not want to grant statehood to the government of the National Conference, Congress and the Alliance, they should have said so in the Supreme Court.
Here, their leaders repeatedly say that these people want statehood because they want to live in a royal style, as if this state will belong only to my house, or only to my family, or only to the National Conference.
This state belongs to all of us; it belongs to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
But because they feel that if we get statehood, their image will be weakened, they oppose it.
Mr Speaker, not having statehood affects us every single day.
Take today, for instance: you received an opinion from the Law Department claiming that debate on this resolution is sub judice and asking you not to allow the debate.
Isn’t that what was said? Along with that, the Chief Secretary also wrote a letter to you. Ask them, sir: at whose behest was this done?
I am the law minister, yet an opinion was sent to you that I haven’t even seen.
As Law Minister, I had no knowledge that my Law Secretary was sending an opinion to you. As Chief Minister, I did not know that the Chief Secretary was sending you a letter regarding my resolution.
At whose behest was this sent? I do not know.
And this is the direct result of us being a Union Territory (UT).
Can you imagine such a thing happening in any state, that the Chief Minister moves a resolution in a state and the Law Secretary gives an opinion against it?
This can happen only in a UT, and such actions take place every single day.
We formed a committee here; these people, who display fake sympathy for daily wagers. We formed a committee for the regularisation of daily wagers. To this day, that committee has not submitted its report.
Why? Because we are a UT.
Mr Speaker, if we were a state, do you think it would take them more than a year to prepare that report? Six months were given; they would have completed it in four months, but they didn’t.
These people talk about “Long live Maharaja Hari Singh!”, yet they were the very ones who destroyed Maharaja Hari Singh’s legacy.
The map of Jammu and Kashmir that Maharaja Hari Singh handed down as a legacy was shattered by these people. These people destroyed the State Subject law that Maharaja Hari Singh left as a legacy. The special status granted to us when the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession was ruined by these people.
So, with what face do they say, “Long live Maharaja Hari Singh”?
If anyone has truly destroyed his legacy, it is these people.
That is why, Mr Speaker, they do not want to participate in this debate, because they know that their deceit, their fraud and their deception will all be exposed before the public.
Tell me, Mr Speaker: it has been two years since the government was formed, and even today, Jammu and Kashmir do not have an Advocate General.
Lawyers who argue in court are standing here; ask them: name any state or Union Territory in the whole of India where an Advocate General has not been appointed for the past two years, despite the fact that we formally submitted a written proposal with a name.
That proposal is still lying there.
Regarding reservation, to bring about equality and ensure justice for the open merit category, the government worked on it.
First, a Cabinet Sub-Committee was formed under the supervision of Sakina Itoo. The Cabinet Sub-Committee did its work, a report was prepared, and the Cabinet approved it. After approval, the Hon’ble LG kept it with him for a long time.
After that, using his legal and constitutional power to send a Central Reference to the Government of India, he exercised that power and sent our decision to the Central Government for opinion and examination.
The Central Government raised some queries from there; answers to those queries were prepared, presented before the Cabinet and approved by the Cabinet.
After approval, we sent our decision back to the LG. From that day to this day, that decision on reservation has not been returned to us.
Mr Speaker, we are told that in a UT, security and law and order are the LG’s responsibilities, while everything else is ours. So why were Revenue officers kept outside our jurisdiction?
Revenue officers are only needed when the law-and-order situation deteriorates, magisterial powers are conferred on them, and they go out to restore order, as happened in 2010, 2016 and 2019.
Tell me, sir, what is the justification for keeping Revenue officers out of the elected government’s domain?
There are so many powers over which we have no control.
I mentioned two the other day when I moved this resolution. I spoke about developmental schemes and the Power Development Corporation.
Mr Speaker, today even the Jammu and Kashmir Academy of Art, Culture and Languages is not under the control of the elected government; it is under the Hon’ble LG.
Now tell me, what does the Cultural Academy have to do with law and order?
Yet the Cultural Academy is not with us.
Look at the universities: in the previous government, as you remember, at Islamic University of Science & Technology, Awantipora, and Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University, Rajouri, the Chief Minister was ex-officio Chancellor.
Today, the Chief Minister has no role in either university; the Chancellor is the LG, and the Chief Minister is excluded from decisions.
Why? What is the compulsion?
And the biggest issue, Mr Speaker: nearly two years ago, we sent Business Rules from here to the Central Government.
Our Business Rules have still not been approved there.
We told them that if there is any flaw or weakness, point it out and we will rectify it, but at least clear this confusion over the execution of power. Even that has not been done.
How long should we remain patient? How long?
Therefore, forced by these circumstances today, we thought that statehood would be a concern for the entire House.
I do not know where they get their dictation from. Privately, they say one thing to me, and publicly, another.
How many standing here privately wish to say “yes” to the restoration of statehood, but cannot?
I can understand their compulsion, Mr Speaker.
Sometimes it feels sad listening to their statements and slogans.
Today she is not present, our young sister, Devyani Rana.
The other day, I heard her raising the slogan, “Jaichands of Jammu, down down!”
It made me feel very bad.
It made me feel bad because her late father, Devender Rana, was a very close colleague of mine.
I worked very closely with him.
And I know that if the slogan “Jaichands of Jammu” was used against anyone the most, it was used by these very people against the late Devender Rana.
Today, his own daughter stands here raising that slogan.
I feel that at least this does not befit her.
Others doing it, we can understand, but someone whose father faced this slogan… Politics takes turns, but one should not take such a sharp turn that one forgets one’s own identity.
Mr Speaker, Jammu and Kashmir wants no favours. Jammu and Kashmir asks for no charity. We are not beggars.
We were humiliated, we were degraded, and we want answers and justice for this humiliation. We demand our right. We demand, as a matter of right, that statehood is our right.
This is not a favour from the Centre; this is not a gift or bounty from the Centre.
The Centre made a promise to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and the Centre must fulfil its promise.
I request this House to kindly pass this resolution: that the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir tells the Central Government to restore full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir immediately.
