Return of Colonial-Era, Says J&K Deputy CM on Controversial Bills
By: Javid Amin | 21 Aug 2025
A Storm in Parliament
The recent introduction of the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 and the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025 has reignited a heated debate over democracy, federalism, and central authority in India.
While the Union Government defends the Bills as necessary for “ensuring accountability of public representatives”, critics see them as a dangerous attempt to consolidate power and undermine the federal structure.
The strongest criticism has come from J&K Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Kumar Choudhary, who described the move as a “return of colonial-era rule,” warning that the Bills represent an alarming slide toward authoritarianism.
What the Bills Actually Propose
1. The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025
This Bill introduces a new provision:
-
If a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or Minister is arrested and remains in custody for 30 consecutive days on charges punishable by five years or more, they will automatically be removed from office.
-
The provision does not require a conviction—it is triggered merely by the period of detention, even if legal proceedings are ongoing or politically motivated.
Key Concern: This raises the possibility that a leader could be arrested under broad charges, detained for a month, and unseated without a trial or judicial conclusion.
2. The J&K Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025
In Jammu & Kashmir specifically, the Bill goes further:
-
It grants the Lieutenant Governor (LG) direct powers to remove a Minister or Chief Minister under the above rule.
-
This strengthens the role of the LG—an unelected representative of the Centre—while diluting the authority of the elected legislative assembly.
Key Concern: In a region already stripped of its special status post-Article 370, this amendment appears to further centralize control.
Deputy CM Choudhary’s Rebuke
Deputy CM Surinder Kumar Choudhary minced no words:
“These Bills mean a return of the colonial rule. People were enslaved for 200 years in the past and they (the government) want to do the same again.”
Choudhary accused the Union Government of deliberately avoiding the restoration of statehood, which many had expected as a goodwill measure, and instead introducing laws that could be used to unseat elected leaders at will.
His statement echoes a growing fear in J&K that instead of democratic empowerment, the region is being subjected to political experimentation that resembles colonial governance models—where administrators held unchecked power over local leaders.
Opposition’s Wider Reactions
The opposition, across ideological lines, has been quick to attack the Bills:
-
PDP’s Sartaj Madni: “This is another weapon to remove a CM. Instead of giving J&K its rights, they are creating tools to silence opposition.”
-
CPI(M)’s M.Y. Tarigami: “This is a step toward dictatorship. Notice how central ministers remain untouched while opposition leaders are the real targets.”
-
Congress leaders have also hinted that such provisions, if passed, could be weaponized nationally, setting a precedent for silencing dissenting Chief Ministers in other states.
Together, the critics argue that these Bills could reshape Indian democracy in dangerous ways—moving from rule by consent to rule by coercion.
Colonial Parallels: Why “Return of Colonial-Era”?
Choudhary’s phrase resonates because it draws on India’s painful history.
-
Colonial Governors vs. Today’s LGs
-
During British rule, Governors and Viceroys held supreme authority, often dismissing elected leaders or assemblies when convenient.
-
Today, the Lieutenant Governor of J&K—with enhanced powers under the Bill—resembles that colonial administrator role.
-
-
Use of Detention as a Political Tool
-
Colonial laws, such as the Rowlatt Act (1919), allowed detention without trial, used widely to suppress political opponents.
-
The new Bills risk reintroducing the same spirit, where arrest ≠ guilt but still becomes grounds for disqualification.
-
-
Democratic Facade, Authoritarian Core
-
The British allowed “representative councils” but ensured ultimate power lay with the Crown.
-
Similarly, critics argue these Bills create the illusion of democratic governance, while real power shifts to unelected authority.
-
Thus, the colonial analogy isn’t just emotional—it highlights structural similarities.
Implications for J&K
The Bills carry special weight in Jammu & Kashmir:
-
Fragile Trust Deficit: Since the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, J&K has operated under heightened central control. Many hoped that 2025 would bring restoration of statehood. These Bills suggest the opposite.
-
Political Marginalization: Leaders fear that any CM or Minister critical of New Delhi could face legal entanglements, making it easier to dislodge opposition governments.
-
Fueling Alienation: In a region with a history of political unrest and alienation, such moves risk deepening perceptions of disempowerment and occupation.
-
Setting Precedent for India: If implemented in J&K today, what stops similar provisions being extended to other states tomorrow?
Constitutional Concerns
Legal experts highlight several constitutional red flags:
-
Presumption of Innocence Violated
-
Indian law traditionally holds that an accused is innocent until proven guilty.
-
Here, a mere arrest and 30-day detention—without trial—would be enough to remove an elected leader.
-
-
Separation of Powers Eroded
-
Normally, removal of a PM/CM is political (via vote of no-confidence) or judicial (via conviction).
-
These Bills introduce executive removal powers, blurring the lines.
-
-
Federalism Undermined
-
The Indian Constitution envisions states as autonomous units within the Union.
-
By giving LGs unilateral powers, the Bills tilt the balance toward centralized governance.
-
-
Scope for Misuse
-
In India’s highly competitive politics, opponents warn this could become a tool for vendetta politics, where investigations and arrests become instruments of regime change.
-
Political Messaging: Why Now?
Analysts believe timing is key:
-
The Bills were tabled just weeks before the sixth anniversary of Article 370’s abrogation.
-
They may signal the government’s intent to assert its uncompromising control over J&K.
-
Politically, it allows the ruling party to project toughness on corruption and lawlessness, even if critics see it as selective targeting.
Some argue it also serves as a trial balloon: if passed with little resistance in J&K, similar provisions could be replicated in other states.
The Bigger Picture
The heart of the debate is not about J&K alone but about India’s democratic trajectory.
-
Do these Bills strengthen governance—or weaken democracy?
-
Is this about accountability—or political centralization?
-
Will history see this as a bold reform or a democratic regression?
As Deputy CM Choudhary noted, the shadow of colonial history looms large. For a nation that fought for independence to reclaim self-rule, the prospect of leaders being dismissed by unelected administrators is unsettling.
Bottom-Line: A Crossroads for Democracy
The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 and the J&K Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025 may appear technical, but their implications are seismic.
They strike at the core of democratic representation by making elected leaders vulnerable not to the people’s will or judicial process, but to executive detention and administrative fiat.
Whether these Bills are passed or defeated, the debate they have sparked is crucial. It is a test of India’s ability to balance accountability with liberty, and central power with federal democracy.
For J&K, already scarred by decades of political disenfranchisement, the stakes are even higher. As critics warn, if governance begins to mirror colonial models, the promise of “Naya Kashmir” may collapse into the shadows of history.
