The National Conference’s decision to convene a protest in New Delhi on July 28, reportedly inviting as many as 52 leaders as show of strength from across the Opposition spectrum along with separatist leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, deserves far greater scrutiny than it has received so far. If reports that the gathering will seek restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood while also reviving demands surrounding Articles 370 and 35A are accurate, then the Narendra Modi government cannot afford to dismiss it as yet another political demonstration.
The timing itself raises several questions. At a time when Pakistan-occupied Kashmir continues to witness growing internal unrest and Bharat is consolidating its strategic, diplomatic and economic position globally, reopening issues that Parliament settled in August 2019 could potentially reignite political tensions in one of the country’s most sensitive regions.
The abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A was among the most consequential constitutional decisions taken by the Modi government. Supporters view it as the final step towards complete constitutional integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of Bharat. The Supreme Court subsequently upheld the constitutional validity of the decision while observing that restoration of statehood should be considered at an appropriate stage.
That observation, however, should not be interpreted as an unconditional directive divorced from prevailing security realities. Circumstances evolve. Governments are expected to assess law and order, national security, cross-border terrorism, and internal stability before taking decisions of such magnitude. Constitutional advice cannot be viewed in isolation from ground realities.
What makes the proposed mobilisation particularly sensitive is the reported insistence by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq that any political campaign should also include demands for restoration of Articles 370 and 35A besides the release of detainees. Whether such demands ultimately become part of the official agenda or not, they risk sending a message that issues Parliament considered settled are once again open for political bargaining.
The Modi government must draw a clear constitutional red line.
There should be no ambiguity that restoration of Articles 370 and 35A is neither on the government’s agenda nor compatible with the constitutional framework that exists today. Any attempt to create political pressure for reversing that historic decision must be met through constitutional firmness, democratic debate and uncompromising adherence to the rule of law.
Equally important is the role of the Omar Abdullah-led National Conference government. Having assumed office through a democratic mandate, its foremost responsibility is governance, development, employment generation and ensuring lasting peace. The priorities of the people of Jammu and Kashmir today extend well beyond constitutional symbolism. Investment, tourism, infrastructure, education and jobs remain far more pressing concerns for ordinary citizens than reopening constitutional questions that have already undergone judicial scrutiny.
The Centre must also closely monitor whether any political mobilisation crosses the line from democratic dissent into activities that threaten public order or national security. Peaceful protest is a constitutional right. But no democracy is obliged to permit campaigns that seek to undermine constitutional finality or create conditions that may encourage separatist sentiment or instability.
There is another aspect the nation will watch carefully. The list of political leaders attending the July 28 event will inevitably become a political statement in itself. Those choosing to participate must explain whether their presence signifies support merely for restoration of statehood or extends to demands for revisiting Articles 370 and 35A. The distinction is significant and deserves public clarity.
The Modi government, too, faces a defining test. Any perception of indecision could embolden forces seeking to reopen settled constitutional issues. Equally, any response must remain firmly within the framework of the Constitution and democratic norms.
If the situation on the ground suggests that restoration of full statehood could compromise stability or national security, the Centre should not hesitate to defer such a decision. National interest must always outweigh political expediency. In the worst-case scenario, if constitutional governance were ever to be seriously threatened, the Union possesses adequate constitutional mechanisms—including central intervention under appropriate constitutional provisions—to safeguard the integrity of the nation.
The hard-earned gains in Jammu and Kashmir since 2019 should not be placed at risk for short-term political calculations. The nation has invested enormous political, administrative and security capital in restoring normalcy. Preserving that stability must remain the government’s overriding priority. On this issue, complacency is not an option. It is precisely such moments that determine whether a government anticipates a crisis—or merely reacts after the fuse has already been lit.
