On Accession Day, Mehbooba Mufti calls for discussion on Kashmir: ‘Discussed everywhere, but here’

Mehbooba Mufti is calling for Kashmir to be discussed as a political and public issue, not merely as a security problem. She wants people to address accession to India, the rights associated with it, and the fears and restrictions experienced in Jammu and Kashmir. This matters because she says silence is being mistaken for peace and normality.

She points to a sharp contrast. Kashmir is discussed at the United Nations, by Turkish President Erdogan, by Pakistan, and during elections in states such as Uttar Pradesh, Himachal, and Punjab. Inside J&K, she says discussion instead happens through the NIA, CBI, UAPA, PSA, raids, and curfews.

Mufti says this silence reflects fear. She mentions restrictions on movement and speech, security stops that lengthen journeys, and young people unable to obtain passports. Her call implies that future peace requires dialogue and political engagement, rather than treating Kashmir only through agencies, anti-terror laws, and policing.

Accession Day is the observance marking the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir acceding to India. The day matters because it represents the constitutional and political starting point of the relationship between J&K and the Indian Union. Mehbooba Mufti spoke at a party meeting held on this occasion.

The article identifies October 26 as Accession Day. Mufti says J&K joined India under particular conditions and with specific expectations about rights. She connects those expectations to Articles 370 and 35A, which she says protected special arrangements and rights for the state and its permanent residents.

The observance remains politically important because those arrangements changed in August 2019. Mufti says people should remember both the decision to join India and the circumstances surrounding it. The date therefore carries different meanings: it celebrates accession, while also reopening debate about the conditions, promises, and rights associated with that decision.

The Instrument of Accession was the formal basis for the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir joining India. In Mufti’s account, accession was not presented as an unconditional arrangement. She says the state’s leaders trusted India’s leadership but connected accession with particular protections and constitutional conditions.

She identifies Articles 370 and 35A as reflecting those conditions. The protections were intended to prevent outsiders from buying land and competing for local jobs. Mufti explains that Jammu and Kashmir had a small landmass and an education system she considered unable to compete with people from outside. These concerns shaped the conditions she associates with accession.

The issue remains central because the Centre changed those arrangements in August 2019. Mufti says J&K was deprived of rights granted under accession. The debate therefore concerns not only the original decision to join India, but also whether the promises and protections linked to that decision have been preserved.

The special constitutional status associated with Articles 370 and 35A lasted for roughly seven decades before the 2019 changes. Article 370 was part of India’s constitutional arrangement for Jammu and Kashmir from the early years of the republic, while Article 35A was added later to provide special rights to permanent residents. The article describes the status as lasting until August 2019.

In practical terms, this was a long-running arrangement connected to accession. Mufti says it reflected conditions under which Jammu and Kashmir joined India. She specifically links those protections to land ownership, employment, and the state’s ability to preserve its limited resources and opportunities for residents.

The period ended when the Centre effectively abrogated Article 370 and removed the provisions of Article 35A in August 2019. The change remains contested by the PDP and other regional parties. Thus, the answer is approximately seventy years, not a short transitional period, and its ending continues to shape political debate.

The August 2019 changes ended Jammu and Kashmir’s earlier special constitutional arrangement. The Centre effectively abrogated Article 370, which had granted J&K special status, and removed the provisions of Article 35A, which provided special rights to permanent residents. These changes altered the legal and political framework created after accession.

The reorganisation was another major step. The erstwhile state was divided into two Union territories: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. This changed J&K’s status from a state into a Union territory and placed the region within a different administrative structure. The article presents this as part of the Centre’s broader 2019 move.

The consequences remain politically significant. The PDP and other regional parties oppose the changes, and the issue is still a key point of contention with the Centre. Mufti argues that people were deprived of rights associated with accession, while the article records the government’s position that J&K is an integral part of India.

The NIA, or National Investigation Agency, investigates serious national-security and terrorism-related cases. The CBI, or Central Bureau of Investigation, handles major investigations under the central government. UAPA is the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, an anti-terror and national-security law. PSA is the Public Safety Act, a preventive-detention law. These institutions and laws can bring people into investigations, raids, prosecutions, or detention.

Mufti says Kashmir is discussed through these tools rather than through open political debate. She mentions raids carried out in the names of militancy, corruption, and drugs. She also says surrendered militants are still called to police stations and that many young people face passport difficulties or security stops.

The article presents these effects through Mufti’s criticism, not as an independent legal assessment. She argues that such practices create fear and restrict movement and speech. The wider implication is that security measures may shape daily life and public discussion, while regional parties continue demanding political engagement over Kashmir.

A Union territory is a part of India administered primarily through the Union government, rather than enjoying the broader constitutional position of a full-fledged state. A state normally has its own elected government and wider powers over administration and lawmaking. Union territories have less independent authority, although some may have elected legislatures and governments under special arrangements.

This distinction matters because it changes where political and administrative power is concentrated. When the former state of Jammu and Kashmir was reorganised in August 2019, it became the Union territory of Jammu & Kashmir, while Ladakh became a separate Union territory. The article identifies this as a major consequence of the 2019 changes.

The new status remains part of the political dispute. The PDP has opposed the Centre’s changes, while Mufti says J&K lost rights associated with accession. More broadly, Union-territory status means the Union government has a stronger direct role, making questions about representation, autonomy, and local decision-making especially important.