Power, Conscience and the Gandhian Understanding of Public Service
In parliamentary democracy, ministerial office represents executive authority and responsibility for governance. However, political responsibility extends beyond the exercise of administrative power. It also encompasses the obligation to uphold constitutional principles, protect democratic institutions and safeguard the rights of citizens.
Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of public service offers an important perspective on this distinction. For Gandhi, political authority was never an end in itself. Public office carried a moral obligation to serve the people, particularly those whose rights, dignity and opportunities required protection.
This understanding provides a philosophical framework for examining the Indian National Congress’s decision not to participate in the Council of Ministers of the National Conference-led government in Jammu and Kashmir until the restoration of full statehood.
Congress’s Position: Support for Representative Government, Not Participation in the Cabinet
The Congress leadership’s position on participation in the Jammu and Kashmir government has remained consistent since the formation of the elected government in October 2024.
Under the leadership of Congress President Shri Mallikarjun Kharge, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Shri Rahul Gandhi, and Jammu and Kashmir Pradesh Congress Committee President Shri Tariq Hameed Karra, the party has maintained that the restoration of full statehood is a fundamental constitutional and political priority.
Congress has therefore distinguished between supporting an elected government and accepting ministerial responsibilities within the existing Union Territory framework.
Its decision to remain outside the Cabinet does not amount to withdrawal from the political alliance, rejection of the electoral mandate or abandonment of its responsibility towards the people. Rather, it reflects the party’s declared position that participation in ministerial office should not take precedence over its demand for the restoration of the constitutional status and rights of Jammu and Kashmir.
This distinction is particularly important in the context of the recent Cabinet expansion. The absence of Congress ministers should not be interpreted as the party having been excluded from government. The party has consciously maintained its decision not to accept ministerial portfolios under the prevailing constitutional arrangement.
At the same time, continued support for the elected government does not imply unconditional endorsement of every administrative decision. Congress retains its political responsibility to raise public grievances, seek accountability and advocate fulfilment of commitments made to the electorate.
Complete Statehood: Restoring Constitutional Equality
The reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019 fundamentally altered its constitutional and administrative status. The former state was reorganised into Union Territories, resulting in a different distribution of legislative and executive authority.
Although the restoration of an elected Legislative Assembly in 2024 represented an important return to representative government, the existing Union Territory framework does not confer the same constitutional position and institutional authority ordinarily enjoyed by a full-fledged state.
The Congress demand for complete statehood must therefore be understood as a demand for the restoration of meaningful democratic authority, legislative competence and institutional accountability.
The principle is straightforward: the people of Jammu and Kashmir should enjoy the constitutional dignity, democratic representation and powers of self-government available to citizens living in other states of the Indian Union.
This is not a demand for separation from the national constitutional framework. It is a demand for equal and effective participation within that framework.
A fully empowered elected government, functioning within the constitutional distribution of powers applicable to states, is essential for ensuring that public representatives can meaningfully discharge their responsibilities towards the electorate.
Beyond Statehood: Constitutional Safeguards for Land, Employment and Resources
The Congress leadership has also emphasised that restoration of statehood must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards for the legitimate interests of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
These concerns relate particularly to land ownership, employment opportunities, natural resources and the preservation of the region’s distinctive social and cultural identity.
The demand for such safeguards should be examined within the broader Indian constitutional tradition, which recognises that different states and regions may require particular legal or constitutional protections arising from their historical, geographical, social and economic circumstances.
Constitutional provisions and special protective arrangements already exist for several regions of India. Their existence demonstrates that regional safeguards and national unity are not inherently contradictory.
For Jammu and Kashmir, the objective should be to secure an appropriate constitutional and legislative framework that protects legitimate local interests while remaining consistent with fundamental rights, national citizenship and the constitutional structure of the Republic.
It is equally important to recognise that restoration of statehood and restoration of specific safeguards are legally distinct questions. Statehood alone would not automatically reinstate every protection that previously existed. The nature, scope and legal mechanism of such safeguards would require separate constitutional and legislative consideration.
This is why the Congress leadership’s broader emphasis on complete statehood together with constitutional guarantees for land, jobs and resources deserves to be understood as a comprehensive constitutional demand rather than merely an administrative proposal.
Equal Citizenship and Regional Protection Are Complementary Principles
The people of Jammu and Kashmir are entitled to the same constitutional dignity and democratic rights as their fellow citizens across India.
At the same time, equality within a federal democracy does not necessarily require identical administrative arrangements in every region.
India’s constitutional framework accommodates regional diversity while preserving the unity and integrity of the nation. The protection of legitimate regional interests can therefore coexist with the principles of equal citizenship, constitutional supremacy and national integration.
The Congress position seeks to place Jammu and Kashmir’s aspirations within this established constitutional understanding.
The objective is neither preferential treatment at the expense of other citizens nor the creation of an arrangement outside the Indian constitutional order. It is the restoration of full democratic statehood, accompanied by legally sustainable safeguards appropriate to the region’s circumstances.
Political Responsibility Beyond Ministerial Office
A political party’s responsibility to the public cannot be measured exclusively by the number of ministerial portfolios it holds.
Participation in government provides opportunities to influence administrative decisions directly. Equally, remaining outside the executive may allow a party to maintain a distinct political position on unresolved constitutional questions while continuing to support representative institutions.
The Congress leadership has chosen the latter course in Jammu and Kashmir.
However, the credibility of this position ultimately depends upon sustained political engagement, constructive legislative participation, responsiveness to public grievances and continued pursuit of the commitments articulated by the party.
The restoration of statehood is closely connected with practical questions affecting ordinary citizens, including employment, public services, infrastructure, economic development and accountable administration.
Consequently, the constitutional demand cannot remain detached from everyday governance. It must be accompanied by meaningful efforts to address the concerns of youth, farmers, workers, traders, women and other sections of society.
A Consistent Position in a Changing Political Environment
The Congress decision not to accept Cabinet positions has been reiterated despite political developments and opportunities for ministerial participation.
JKPCC President Shri Tariq Hameed Karra has consistently maintained that the party will not compromise its position on statehood and constitutional rights merely to obtain executive office.
The party has also continued to support the stability of the elected government while asserting its right to question administrative decisions and raise matters affecting public welfare.
This approach reflects a distinction between alliance responsibility, ministerial participation and constitutional advocacy.
The immediate responsibility of an elected administration is to govern effectively within the authority available to it. The wider constitutional responsibility of political parties, including Congress, is to pursue the restoration of powers and protections that they believe are necessary for meaningful self-government.
These responsibilities need not be mutually exclusive.
Conclusion: Statehood as a Question of Constitutional Dignity
The debate over Congress’s participation in the Jammu and Kashmir Cabinet should not be reduced to questions of political accommodation or distribution of ministerial portfolios.
At its centre lies a larger constitutional question: whether the people of Jammu and Kashmir should continue under the existing Union Territory arrangement or regain the status, powers and institutional autonomy associated with full statehood.
The Congress leadership has made its position clear. It supports representative government while declining ministerial participation until its demand for the restoration of statehood is addressed.
Its wider demand encompasses appropriate constitutional safeguards for land, employment and natural resources, consistent with the rights and protections available under the Indian constitutional framework.
The enduring significance of this position will be determined not simply by the refusal of ministerial office, but by the consistency, constitutional clarity and effectiveness with which the party pursues these objectives.
The fundamental issue is not who occupies a ministerial chair, but whether the democratic institutions of Jammu and Kashmir possess the constitutional authority necessary to serve their people.
In that distinction lies the meaning of Principle Over Power.
(The author is pursuing an M.Tech in Power Systems and is a member of the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI). [email protected])
