Srinagar, Oct 2: The People’s Democratic Party (PDP), which for years distinguished its political vision for Jammu and Kashmir from the National Conference (NC)’s demand for greater autonomy, now finds itself at the centre of a debate over whether that distinction is beginning to blur.
The question has been sharpened by PDP legislator Waheed-ur-Rehman Para’s amendment to Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s statehood resolution, seeking references to the restoration of Article 370 and Article 35-A in their original form and to autonomy.
NC legislator TanvirSadiq seized on the move, saying the PDP was “quietly rediscovering ‘autonomy’ after years of selling self-rule and all those tall promises”.
He also questioned whether PDP President Mehbooba Mufti would endorse Para’s position or distance herself from it.
The exchange has revived an old ideological fault line between the two main regional parties.
It has also raised a more contemporary question of whether the PDP has moved closer to the NC’s traditional autonomy position as the politics of J&K changed since the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019.
Or is it just a shift in emphasis, rather than a formally declared abandonment of self-rule.
The PDP’s own self-rule framework, published in 2008, explicitly sought to distinguish the concept from the NC’s autonomy demand.
The document described self-rule as a broader framework involving political, economic, and constitutional arrangements, including cross-Line of Control (LoC) institutions and economic integration between the two parts of Kashmir.
It also envisaged constitutional restructuring and greater political empowerment for the region.
The distinction was also central to the PDP’s political messaging under Mufti Muhammad Sayeed and Mehbooba Mufti.
In its 2014 ‘Aspirational Agenda’, the party said it would pursue its self-rule framework while using Article 370 to restore what it described as the state’s original special status and seeking closer ties across the LoC.
That formulation was conceptually different from the NC’s long-standing demand for restoration of greater autonomy within the Indian constitutional framework.
The NC-led J&K Assembly had in 2000 adopted a resolution seeking restoration of greater autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir to the constitutional position that existed before 1953.
That resolution was subsequently rejected by the Centre.
Against that history, Para’s latest amendment is politically significant.
CM Omar’s resolution itself seeks the “immediate and urgent restoration” of full statehood and refers to Assembly resolutions passed in 2000 and 2024.
The 2000 reference has already triggered strong objections from opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislators because of its association with the NC’s autonomy demand.
Para has gone further by seeking restoration of Article 370 and Article 35-A, while reports on the amendments say his proposal also seeks restoration of autonomy.
Several NC legislators have also separately submitted amendments seeking references to Article 370 and Article 35-A.
This has made the Assembly debate less a contest between two clearly separated regional positions and more a discussion over the extent of constitutional restoration being sought.
However, that does not establish that the PDP has formally abandoned self-rule.
The party has not publicly announced a new ideological document replacing the self-rule framework, nor has Mehbooba Mufti endorsed Para’s amendment as a change in party policy.
The PDP has continued to invoke its broader political legacy and its vision of J&K as part of a cooperative relationship between India and Pakistan.
So, does the political significance of Para’s intervention lie less in a formal renunciation of self-rule than in the convergence of language around constitutional restoration.
For the NC, the development offers an opportunity to portray the PDP as borrowing a plank it once treated as distinct from its own.
For the PDP, Para’s amendment allows it to argue that a statehood resolution that does not address the constitutional changes of 2019 is incomplete.
Para himself has sought to turn the focus back on the NC, pointing to amendments moved by NC legislators and questioning the language, intent, and scope of CM Omar’s resolution.
Several NC members also sought explicit references to Article 370 and Article 35-A.
This creates an unusual political overlap.
The NC, whose traditional vocabulary centred on autonomy, is now leading a statehood resolution that invokes its 2000 autonomy resolution.
The PDP, historically seeking self-rule, is demanding to insert autonomy and the restoration of the pre-2019 constitutional provisions into that resolution.
The distinction remains important.
Self-rule and autonomy were not interchangeable concepts in the PDP’s original political framework.
The party’s own document described self-rule as extending beyond the conventional Centre-state relationship, with a pan-Kashmir and cross-border dimension.
Whether Para’s amendment represents a deliberate recalibration of that position, an attempt to strengthen the PDP’s opposition credentials, or simply a response to the NC’s statehood resolution remains to be clarified by the party leadership.
For now, the J&K Assembly debate has produced an irony that would have been difficult to imagine when the two parties were sharply distinguishing their respective Kashmir formulations.
The NC is being challenged by the PDP for not going far enough on constitutional restoration, while the PDP is being taunted by the NC for rediscovering the very language of autonomy it once sought to differentiate itself from.
As the post-2019 political landscape reshapes the debate over J&K’s constitutional future, the immediate issue is not whether the PDP has formally abandoned self-rule but whether the party is gradually moving its public political vocabulary towards the NC’s autonomy-based framework.
