Last update:02 November 2024, 07:18 IST

If J&K leaders see the status of the UT as something they cannot honour, then it raises the question of their right to hold positions within this system itself.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah during a meeting in New Delhi. (File photo: PTI)

Civil service in India requires unwavering commitment to constitutional principles and national integrity, particularly in regions with unique governance frameworks like Jammu and Kashmir. This is not just a formal duty but a commitment to serve as a bridge between regional aspirations and the constitutional ideals of the nation. When leaders, who have taken a solemn oath to defend the integrity of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, selectively engage in the responsibilities of their office, it not only undermines public trust, but raises questions about the consistency of their allegiance.

On October 16, 2024, Omar Abdullah, leader of the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC), took solemn oath as the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, declaring: “I, Omar Abdullah, do swear in the name of God that I will defend the sovereignty and integrity of India, discharge my duties as the Chief Minister of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and faithfully adhere to the Constitution of India. » This commitment, deeply rooted in the principles of unity and commitment, means a binding commitment. promise to respect the dignity, sovereignty and legal framework of J&K as an inseparable part of India.

Yet just two weeks into his term, leaders who made that pledge are now boycotting Union Territory Foundation Day, a founding moment meant to honor the region’s integration into India . This action raises a critical question about the ethical and moral position of these leaders: how can they occupy and benefit from the very positions created by the UT framework while simultaneously rejecting recognition of that framework? The selective allegiance displayed here not only undermines public trust, but also calls into question the depth of their commitment to national unity.

By refusing to participate in UT Foundation Day, these leaders are implicitly rejecting a critical aspect of the governance framework that legitimizes their authority. The irony lies in their selective acceptance of their roles: they willingly assume the privileges and responsibilities of that office, but refuse to engage in founding celebrations that reaffirm their commitment to that office. This behavior doesn’t just circumvent their duties; it fundamentally undermines the trust their constituents place in them and betrays the spirit of their oaths.

The moral contradiction here is glaring. If these leaders view the status of the UT as something they cannot honor, then it raises the question of their right to hold positions within this system itself. Such selective allegiance is not only an ethical dilemma but also carries legal implications. The oath taken by public officers demands loyalty to the Constitution of India and, by extension, the framework of the Union Territory. By boycotting key symbolic events, they are sending a contradictory message to the public – one that could inadvertently encourage divisive and anti-national sentiments among their supporters.

This selective approach is not an isolated phenomenon; rather, it reflects a worrying behavior in which some leaders and parties, particularly the JKNC, have engaged in actions that challenge the spirit of national unity. In the aftermath of the abrogation of Article 370, the same leaders, instead of focusing on the potential for peace and development, adopted positions that often reflected separatist sentiments, distancing themselves from initiatives aimed at integration . This trend has sowed confusion and weakened the very notion of responsibility towards the Union.

Examples of such selective loyalty can be traced over several years of political posturing that sometimes prioritized local agendas over national unity. By evading the responsibility to fully integrate into India’s larger framework, leaders like Omar Abdullah and other members of the JKNC have, intentionally or unintentionally, perpetuated a legacy of contradictions that hinders real progress.

The refusal to celebrate UT Foundation Day and the selective allegiance displayed by these leaders goes beyond personal or partisan positions. Such actions could fuel anti-India sentiment in a region that has long been a hotbed of separatist ideologies. In the eyes of the public, these symbolic gestures – or lack thereof – speak volumes. When leaders choose to reject a founding day that marks unity and inclusion, they embolden narratives that oppose national integration.

We cannot neglect the impact of public actions on public perception. These leaders, as eminent personalities, have the responsibility to foster unity, stability and hope within the region. By choosing instead to send a message of selective allegiance, they risk alienating youth and communities hungry for peace and development, inadvertently providing material to those who question the place of Jammu and Kashmir in the broader national context.

For public office holders, moral and legal consistency is paramount. By occupying positions that represent the Union Territory, these leaders are bound by the ethical duty to exemplify unity and respect for the Indian Constitution. The actions of leaders like Omar Abdullah set the tone for governance and accountability. Their selective participation in governance, celebrating only those moments that fit regional agendas while neglecting those that symbolize unity, sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

As the UT moves forward, it is crucial that central and regional authorities emphasize that civil service is a commitment to the whole of India and not simply to a segmented or selective idea of ​​governance. Home Minister Amit Shah, Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha and other authorities have a duty to ensure that those in office respect the dignity of the posts they hold and work towards smooth integration of Jammu -and Kashmir in the national fold.

Ultimately, if leaders like Omar Abdullah and other JKNC members want to remain in office, it is up to them to honor their commitments, both in word and deed. Selective allegiance – committing to some aspects of governance while rejecting others – betrays the very trust the public places in them. To truly serve the people of Jammu and Kashmir, these leaders must transcend their historical contradictions, embrace the unity symbolized by UT Foundation Day, and build bridges with the central government to foster progress and prosperity.

Only through genuine commitment to these values ​​can they validate their role as representatives and contribute meaningfully to the future of Jammu and Kashmir in India.

Mudasir Dar is a social activist and peace activist based in South Kashmir. He is the recipient of a Rashtrapati Award and has contributed to numerous local and national publications on a wide range of topics, including national security, politics, governance, peace and conflict. The opinions expressed in the article above are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of News18.