by Tehleel Mushtaq Sathoo
The unified state remains a symbol of co-existential belonging among diverse communities and cultures. This principle is vital for the state’s future. Its erosion would weaken regional parties and undermine the possibility of self-determined politics in Jammu and Kashmir.
The state of Jammu and Kashmir, irrespective of its strategic or historic importance, has for the past four decades been viewed primarily through the lens of Kashmir. Other regions, such as Jammu and Ladakh, have been relegated to the background. Kashmir has become a testing ground, an experimental lab, and a symbolic trophy for competing political interests within the state or at the centre. This narrow focus sowed the initial cracks within the state. Exploitation endured as long as it served political calculations and interests. Even after the bifurcation of the state, the two resulting Union Territories remain divided by opposing ideologies, fragmented into pieces.
Mainstream Political Dynamics
Jammu and Kashmir’s political landscape has been shaped predominantly by the two mainstream regional parties, the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party. Their political agendas have been similar. One advocates autonomy since the late 1950s, the other self-rule. Although they share a common perspective, they rely on different perceptions to achieve their goals. The People’s Democratic Party, formed in the late 1990s after the rise of militancy in Kashmir, was conceived as a bridge between separatist ideology and mainstream politics. It was greeted as a fresh alternative to the decades-old dominance of the National Conference, which had often been accused of playing appeasement politics to maintain favour with the Centre.
This development sharply divided the political scene, assimilating the region into competing ideological factions. Both parties, after the 1990s insurgency, came to power but failed to achieve anything quantifiable in terms of their political goals. The National Conference adhered to longstanding accommodative politics with the Centre, as seen in alliances from 2009 to 2014 with the Indian National Congress or the brief inclusion in the 1999–2002 NDA. It justified these affiliations as a means to safeguard Jammu and Kashmir’s interests at the central level. Such arguments remain highly debatable and evoke varied opinions across the three regions.
In contrast, the People’s Democratic Party survived on a strategy of soft separatism, balancing local Kashmiri sentiments by engaging with India’s constitutional framework. It formed a government in 2002 in coalition with the Indian National Congress but failed to complete its term, leading to Governor’s rule and then Presidential rule until 2008.
The Valley-Centric Representation
A retrospective glance at this trajectory, particularly in the aftermath of the turbulent 1990s, reveals that the state’s representation, despite claims of inclusivity, was largely reduced to the Valley. Both the Centre and regional political forces treated Kashmir and its people as political tools. This pattern continues.
Meanwhile, Jammu, arguably unintentionally, was relegated to a secondary position, overlooked and eclipsed. This political and representational neglect, compounded by national political calculations, entrenched imbalance and stalled progress towards harmony.
The 2019 Turning Point
Before the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, the coalition between the regional player, the People’s Democratic Party and the BJP rested on the understanding that neither local land laws nor Article 370 would be touched, though contested. The coalition collapsed within three years when the BJP withdrew around June 2018. What stands out is how the coalition offered the BJP direct access to the state’s internal dynamics. It allowed the party to study fault lines closely and later use them to its advantage, as evident in the 2024 assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir, where the BJP swept almost all Jammu region seats and expanded into Pir Panchal areas, particularly Poonch and Rajouri.
This marked the first time in Jammu and Kashmir’s history that the BJP came to power directly by forming a government. Equally striking is how regional parties that once claimed widespread influence over all three regions became confined to Kashmir. After the 1990s insurgency, both the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party failed to acknowledge growing discontent. Their focus on political agendas regarding Kashmir exposed vulnerabilities. This allowed Centre-based parties, primarily the Indian National Congress and the BJP, to focus on other regions.
The Indian National Congress held secure ground in Jammu and Ladakh until the late 1990s. From the 2000s, the BJP began a steady rise. Starting from one seat in Jammu in 2002, it surged to 25 in 2014 and reached 29 seats in the latest assembly elections, covering more than 90 per cent of Jammu’s constituencies and establishing footprints in Pir Panchal, especially Poonch and Rajouri.
The decline of the National Conference and the Peoples Democratic Party is not incidental. It is a consequence of their own choices, which limits their existence and survival to Kashmir. This negligence deepened fragmentation, making Jammu and Kashmir more divided than ever. The widening distances between regions weakened the notion of the state as a unified entity and strengthened forces eager to exploit these divisions.
Political Calculations and Disillusionment
In the 2014 election campaigns, the central theme for every party in Jammu and Kashmir was safeguarding the state’s identity and historical protections. The People’s Democratic Party gained significant traction by highlighting the National Conference’s history of alliances and unsupported compromises. This strategy consolidated support for the PDP.
Yet what unfolded later was a familiar sense of betrayal. The PDP allied with the BJP. Despite claims by the National Conference that they had offered support to the PDP to keep the BJP at bay, many viewed the PDP as no different from the National Conference. This deepened disillusionment with local leadership.
At the same time, the voters in Jammu were politically conscious but ultimately sidelined. They understood their own governance needs and what would benefit them, but often saw their aspirations eclipsed by narratives of autonomy or self-rule centred on Kashmir.
Post-Abrogation Political Fragmentation
After the PDP-BJP coalition collapsed in 2018, followed by the imposition of Governor’s rule and the Centre’s overwhelming majority in the Lok Sabha, the abrogation of Article 370 came swiftly. This dismantled the political relevance of regional players and rendered much of Kashmir’s historical political context obsolete. During this period, the National Conference and People’s Democratic Party leaders were detained. They began to reflect on the new enforced circumstances. The People’s Democratic Party eventually started to disintegrate from within. After Mufti Mohammad Sayeed’s death, many senior leaders abandoned the party, blaming leadership decisions while overlooking their own complicity during the coalition.
This could have been a critical moment for regional players to acknowledge their failures and unite in defence of the state’s identity. They briefly did so under the People’s Alliance for the Gupkar Declaration. For the first time, all mainstream regional parties and smaller political players came together to defend the state’s special status under Article 370.
However, within three to four years, electoral self-interest prevailed. Parties began contesting separately. The National Conference accused the People’s Democratic Party of destabilising the alliance. The People’s Democratic Party, beset by internal divisions, began focusing on issues irrelevant to the state’s actual situation. The National Conference aimed to accuse the PDP of the post-2019 situation in Kashmir to gain relevance. The PDP countered with reminders of the National Conference’s own record.
Eventually, the alliance unravelled. The post-370 political landscape of the state deepened divisions, especially within the Valley. With no cohesive ideological front left, the Centre capitalised on this fragmentation by supporting the formation of new regional parties, further deepening divides. This opened a path for the uninterrupted implementation of policies reshaping the cultural, economic, and political fabric of the region.
Cultural Assimilation and Historical Identity
The abrogation of Article 370 ended many of the regional protections of Jammu and Kashmir, paving the way for the erosion of its distinctive historical and cultural identity. The policy of assimilating the larger Indian cultural framework at the expense of the state’s unique character has led to a gradual, systematic dilution. Local traditional historic narratives, linguistic practices and social structures have come under immense pressure. George Orwell famously observed that “what controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” This insight reveals how distorting history is often a deliberate process.
One of the first steps has been to limit and censor independent voices and information about ground realities. The Kashmir Press Club was effectively shut down in 2022 under the pretext of maintaining law and order. Access to digital reportage and archives that existed before 2019, through media, newspapers and magazines, became increasingly inaccessible or restricted. Although no formal restrictions were issued, these limitations clearly reflect political and administrative developments following the abrogation.
More recently, an unprecedented ban was imposed on over two dozen books, citing reasons such as promoting terrorism, anti-national sentiments and religious radicalisation. While some concerns may hold merit, many affected authors are renowned figures who have documented historical events and political commentary. Labelling their work as anti-national undermines the credibility of some of India’s most respected scholars, writers and lawyers.
These include AG Noorani, a historian, political commentator and constitutional law expert; Arundhati Roy, a Booker Prize and National Film Award recipient; and Anuradha Bhasin, executive editor of one of the oldest English-language newspapers in Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly, other internationally acclaimed writers and academics such as Hafsa Kanjwal, Ather Zia and Sumantra Bose cannot be dismissed as anti-national. The underlying goal appears to be the re-visioning, censorship and erosion of the state’s historical relevance and identity.
Language and Cultural Marginalisation
A more recent example of cultural marginalisation is the Naib Tehsildar recruitment exam, which initially required proficiency in Urdu. This sparked protests initiated by Dogri-speaking students and leaders, backed by forces at the helm in Jammu, arguing that the indifference stemmed from perceived discrimination based on language and region. The Central Administrative Tribunal eventually overturned the notification, deeming it discriminatory.
The controversy is rooted in history. Urdu has served as the official language for record-keeping in the state for over 130 years. This practice was instituted by Maharaja Pratap Singh in the late 1880s, when Persian was replaced with Urdu for revenue records, judicial and administrative systems. Despite this longstanding heritage, regional political parties overlooked or normalised the neglect of Jammu and Kashmir’s linguistic and cultural legacy. They adopted a tepid stance that prioritised political manoeuvring over preservation of identity. Comparable disregard in other northern states, irrespective of the ruling political formation, would have provoked significant national scrutiny and debate.
Economic Prospects and Electoral Calculations
Economic and political prospects are the most visibly discernible subjects on the ground compared to the deep cultural revisionism and erosion. A pivotal development occurred a month before the Lok Sabha elections, when the reservation quota was expanded in March 2024 to include the Pahari-speaking population, the third-largest linguistic group in the two regions. On the surface, this expansion might reasonably be viewed as a progressive step aimed at empowerment, and it was projected as such. Yet the timing invites scrutiny. The Lok Sabha elections were scheduled for May.
The delimitation exercise merged Anantnag with Rajouri and Poonch. It appears the reservation expansion was timed to gain an electoral advantage. However, the central governing party did not field any candidate and withdrew from contesting the Anantnag-Rajouri constituency. This strategy yielded dividends in Udhampur and Jammu, while the remaining seats went to the National Conference and an independent candidate widely alleged as a proxy.
What initially appeared as a victory for regional parties soon revealed prolonged instability. The reservation expansion was introduced without adequate attention to proportional representation of Jammu and Kashmir’s population across quotas. Reserved categories constituted a smaller demographic share yet received the majority of job allocations. The open merit category, which accounts for nearly 70 per cent of the population, was left with shrinking opportunities.
The subsequent assembly elections saw the National Conference gain a majority by promising to democratically lead a movement towards restoring Article 370 and rationalising the reservation structure. The government hesitated to act decisively. This exposed the true intent of the reservation expansion and its policy outcomes. Attempts to rationalise the reservation risked alienating the National Conference’s voter base in the Pir Panjal and Pahari-speaking regions, particularly Poonch and Rajouri. Trapped in electoral calculations, the National Conference privileged political expediency over systemic correction.
The BJP maintained its stance, arguing that reversing the reservation expansion would be discriminatory. It positioned itself as a defender of inclusion while gaining leverage with voters and weakening the credibility of regional rivals. The strategy aimed to secure two objectives with one policy.
Economic Fallout
Recent reports paint a stark picture of the economic fallout. The unemployment rate stands at 17.4 per cent, exceeding the national average of 10.2 per cent. Female unemployment reaches 28.6 per cent, according to the baseline survey under Mission Yuva. Other surveys, including those by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy, indicate even higher rates.
In such a climate, the local government’s ability to enact meaningful economic reforms remains severely constrained. Unless the reservation framework is rationalised to reflect factual demographic realities and ensure fairness, unemployment will continue to erode the region’s economic resilience and fuel political discontent.
Fragile Governance in a Sensitive Region
Governance in a politically sensitive region such as Jammu and Kashmir has never been straightforward. Decades of insurgency, unrest and instability have tested every political entity. Operating a government in such volatile conditions requires more than skill. Since 1977, the state has witnessed about six instances where governments failed to complete their full term. A cumulative 14 years and 330 days were spent under either the Governor’s rule or Presidential rule, including the period after 2018. This makes Jammu and Kashmir the only state in India with the longest duration under central rule. Data and statistics illustrate that instability in the region stems not just from governance challenges but from deep-seated alienation, political distrust and a history of unfulfilled promises that have repeatedly triggered unrest.
Over the years, regional political parties campaigned on pledges of political change and stability but rarely translated these promises into action, resulting in discontent rather than genuine progress. At present, as the state faces significant challenges, pre-2019 ideas such as autonomy or self-rule carry little weight. The state’s identity is at risk. Regional political parties lack a coherent, unifying vision that resonates across both regions under one framework. Emotional appeals for votes are no longer sustainable, as the current political climate reveals. Today, focusing solely on day-to-day governance has lost effectiveness. People increasingly demand results rather than rhetoric.
In contrast, the central government’s approach is telling. It has remained determined to achieve its political goals swiftly, regardless of differing opinions. Policies have been implemented with resolve, rather than relying on repeated emotional appeals. The people of Jammu and Kashmir are politically conscious and aware, as reflected in their voting patterns over the years. Regrettably, both regional actors have failed to advance their core promises. Neither can showcase any credible achievement or progress toward their stated political goals.
Electoral Dynamics and Disillusionment
The latest assembly elections again revolved around sentiments linked to decisions made in 2019. Campaigns centred on promises of a democratic struggle to restore the state’s status under Article 370. The people placed their trust in these promises, delivering a large mandate to the National Conference. Many viewed this as a consolidation of resentment against the PDP’s coalition decision in 2015, rather than renewed faith. Yet even with a government less than a year old, disillusionment began to set in.
The pledge to lead a democratic movement towards reinstating the statehood that existed before 2019 seemed theatrical. Irrespective of the present government’s efforts, the reinstatement of statehood appeared inevitable. It is important to understand that this cycle is well recognised by the people, particularly in Jammu. For decades, they have invested trust in external regional or central political players. The contemporary situation in Kashmir is different. Numerous parties and fronts are now in play, including those dismissed as irrelevant or proxy-driven.
It will not take long for people to reassess their trust and move beyond traditional rhetoric. This process risks rendering major regional parties obsolete and irrelevant. These parties fall in line with enforced but invisible policies of the puppeteers in the evolving political landscape.
The Road Ahead
The present political environment in Jammu and Kashmir stands at a decisive juncture. The renewed roadmap demands rising above electoral calculations and short-term accommodations. The restoration of statehood has been mandated repeatedly by the Supreme Court and the central government, making it a matter of time rather than possibility.
Yet to reduce the previously held collective struggle to mere inevitability is to endorse a minimalist approach that risks subverting broader aspirations. Why anchor ambitions to goals already destined to arrive? The restoration of statehood should serve as a baseline, not the pinnacle of political vision.
The current Union Territory government seems to ponder the prospect of attaining statehood compared to what it campaigned for. This approach undermines its own position. One of my post-graduate professors once said, “Aim for the sky and you may fall on a tree, but if you aim for the tree, you may fall on the ground.”
Decades of disillusionment by regional fronts have brought the state to the brink of visionary fatigue. Unless their performative rhetoric gives way to meaningful engagement with ground realities, the regions will remain ideologically fragmented, divided as never before. In the absence of a collective political strategy or affirmative vision, the cracks will continue to widen.
Abandoning either region to political neglect makes these parties complicit in the growing disconnection. This fuels polarisation. The regions have coexisted and prospered together. Their unity is not based merely on geography but rooted in historical and collective memory.
The unified state remains a symbol of co-existential belonging among diverse communities and cultures. This principle is vital for the state’s future. Its erosion would weaken regional parties and undermine the possibility of self-determined politics in Jammu and Kashmir.
An illustration from recent political reassessment offers a valuable lesson. A prominent centre-based political party, after a near collapse in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, reorganised itself. It reconnected with grassroots, organised marches, traversed the country and directly listened to people. This approach set a precedent for how traditional methods of engagement still matter.
Their resurgence in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections underscores the importance of humility, reassessment and listening to ordinary voices. Regional fronts in Jammu and Kashmir must take note. Entitlement to historical legacy must be abandoned or face irrelevance.
Only then can they hope to reclaim space, reassert the collective agency of the people, and ensure that the future of Jammu and Kashmir is not written solely in Delhi. It must also be shaped by its own citizens, fostering a sense of belonging across the regions with an idea of stronger together.
(The writer is a legal professional, Master’s in Human Rights Law (LLM) at Queen Mary University of London. Ideas are personal.)
