Many people suspect that statehood will only be restored to Jammu and Kashmir when and if the BJP is elected to power in the Union Territory. Do you share that apprehension? You know, let me just say that if that is indeed the intention, then I don't know how many hundreds of years will have to pass before Jammu and Kashmir get statehood. because it is absolutely not on the cards. They are not going to have a BJP chief minister. Certainly not in my lifetime, which I estimate will last another 10 years. Hi, I'm Karan Thapar. Over the last few years, I hope you've been watching my program, The Interview on The Wire. During that period, I've interviewed doctors, politicians, businessmen, scientists, authors, and even the occasional Nobel laureate. For me it's been exciting, I hope it's been enjoyable for you. But these, as you know, are tough times, and if this program is going to remain bold, independent, and sometimes even defiant, then I think we need your support. At the end of the day, it's a truism, but editorial independence is best defended by the viewers. So if you would like this program to remain the way it is, forthright, outspoken, and interesting, then would you consider supporting us? All you have to do is to click on the description at the bottom. But more than anything else, I hope you will continue to watch the interview. Your viewership means an awful lot to me. Hello and welcome to a special interview for The Wire. Today, August 5th, is seven years since the abrogation of Article 370 and Jammu and Kashmir's loss of statehood. Whilst most people have accepted that the abrogation is irrevocable, the Modi government has promised that statehood will be restored at the earliest. That was said to the Supreme Court three years ago, but the government has failed to live up to its commitment. So today we ask, how strong is the case for full statehood and does the union government's argument against it hold water? My guest is a former member of the group of interlocutors and co-chairperson of the Forum for Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir, Radha Kumar. Radha Kumar, today is seven years since the abrogation of Article 370 and the loss of Jammu and Kashmir statehood. Whilst most people have accepted that the abrogation of Article 370 is irrevocable the Modi government shows no sign of restoring statehood So can you start by explaining why you believe an immediate restoration of full statehood is not just important but essential? Several reasons, Karan. First of all, all, arguably there was absolutely no reason for Jammu and Kashmir to be stripped of its statehood. In August of 2019, violence was actually very low. There were no terrorist attacks in the months preceding the revocation of 370 and the stripping of statehood. And And therefore, the argument that you needed to turn it into a union territory in order to control violence was simply not borne out by any evidence at all. Secondly, we should remember that this is the first time in the history of independent India since the stripping of Delhi statehood back in 1956, that any state has had its statehood removed. And this was done without any consultation with the people of Jammu and Kashmir, fundamentally against every democratic principle, against the federal structure of the union, against guarantees for states and a violation, therefore, of all our constitutional principles, including Article 1 and 3. Secondly, I would just like to say that people may say that the removal of special status under Article 370 is irrevocable. But history has shown us nothing is irrevocable ever. Let's for today focus on the stripping of statehood and the government's commitment that it will be restored at the earliest. In 2023, the government assured the Supreme Court that the Union Territory arrangement was temporary and the Supreme Court recorded the assurance given by the government that statehood will be restored at the earliest. Has the Modi government gone back on its commitment to the Supreme Court? After all, three full years have passed since that assurance was given and statehood has not been restored. Yes, no question. But let me also begin by pointing out that the first promises to restore statehood were made as early as November 2019 on the floor of Parliament by the Union Home Minister. And repeatedly I mean I given up counting but I would say at least a dozen if not two dozen times both the Prime Minister and the Home Minister have promised restoration of statehood Now the Home Minister laid down a trajectory, first delimitation, then elections, then statehood. Delimitation happened in 2022. It was an utter disgrace, that delimitation. Elections were held in 2024. And here we are in 2026 with no sign of restoration of statehood. So the government is, even by its own spoken words, words spoken by the Home Minister and I gather the Prime Minister as well, the government has gone back on its commitments? Yes. The government seems to say that statehood cannot be restored until terror is eradicated. Pahalgam, the Delhi Red Fort and recent incidents of terror seem to show that the threat of terror continues. Is that a good reason for delaying the restoration of statehood? No, quite frankly. Look, you could equally argue that by having a very heavy-handed security approach, forbidding, banning dissent, censoring books, not allowing free speech, cracking down, imposing curfew at the slightest of reasons, arresting people under PSA and UAPA, again under the flimsiest of pretexts, is a guarantee of generating more violence or fresh violence. When people are not allowed to express their dissent in constitutional terms, they may very well take to unconstitutional terms. And this is, again, historically proven not only in our own experience, but worldwide. So you can actually flip the argument and say that as long as you keep this heavy-handed security approach going, you are going to start breeding terrorism that will express itself always a few years later. that too is a well-proven fact that it takes time for violence to generate. So that's one set of arguments. The other is that, look, a lot of this violence is cross-border, coming from Pakistan-held territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and indeed from Pakistan proper, from the armed jihadi groups in Punjab, for example, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and so on. That you cannot stop by turning subjugating the people of Jammu and Kashmir That you can only curb by either resolving issues with Pakistan or creating a strong enough deterrent that Pakistan does not act in this way. We have not succeeded on either. This government has been in power for 12 years. It has neither succeeded in making peace with Pakistan nor has it, as we have seen from repeated efforts, including Operation Sindhur, we have not succeeded in creating a strong enough deterrent either. Now side by side, the truth is that the Kashmiri response to the Pahelkam attack was a wholehearted rejection of violence and it was expressed through multiple peace marches and candlelit demonstrations. Why do you think that failed to convince the Modi government that Kashmiris reject terror? Because it convinced a lot of the rest of the country. You know, I wish I could explain rationally. I can't. It seems to me completely irrational, the approach that the Modi administration has towards Jammu and Kashmir. This was a golden, heaven-sent opportunity in which the people of the former state are expressing their strong condemnation of terrorism. And you are not willing even to welcome that, far from welcoming it. Kashmiri students are harassed in campuses. Kashmiri traders are boycotted. media full of the worst kinds of allegations against Kashmiris, including, I mean, in my own RWAs. I heard the most ridiculous arguments like, oh, why were the Poniwala still there? That meant that they supported terrorism. I mean, there those poor men were carrying their passengers on their backs to safety. They were there to rescue and protect. One of them lost his life trying to seize a gun. And this is the kind of nasty, petty, horrible narrative that is spread in the rest of the country. And I'm sorry to say, including by members of the government. The truth, again, is that seven years is a very long time not to be a state. Tell me, because you know the Kashmiri people well, how do they view both in Jammu and Kashmir the loss of their statehood, and how keen is that sense of loss that they carry in their hearts? They, of course, they are furious. They are furious, they are embittered, and they are very, very sad. But it's not only at the loss of statehood.
