Sunil Sharma
writetomlapadder@gmail.com
Jammu & Kashmir is undergoing a redefinition of its political culture: it is now seen more as a functional administrative unit within India’s constitutional framework than as a battleground for ideology. This change is shaped by the BJP-led Union Government’s principle support any democratically elected government in Jammu & Kashmir, regardless of party, provided it upholds the Constitution and national unity. The central argument is that governance, rather than ideology, now determines political legitimacy in the region.
This marks a departure from earlier political phases, when governance in Jammu & Kashmir was often overshadowed by factionalist ideologies rooted in selective history, identity politics, and political ambiguity. Those approaches prioritised symbolism over administration and agitation over service delivery. The current framework shifts the focus away from ideological posturing and places governance, institutional stability, and administrative normalcy at the centre of political legitimacy.
The Union Government has made its position explicit. It is willing to extend full financial, administrative, and institutional cooperation to any elected government in the region, including the present Omar Abdullah-led administration. However, this cooperation is conditional on constitutional clarity and nationalist responsibility. What the Centre will not support are political approaches that revive factionalist ideologies, which blur the line between governance and agitation models that have previously weakened institutions and destabilised society.
For decades, Jammu & Kashmir suffered under political practices that treated governance as secondary. Competing narratives of exceptionalism and unresolved identity dominated politics, while state institutions steadily eroded. The consequences were tangible: disrupted education, stalled development, politicised recruitment, and inconsistent public services. Governance became symbolic rather than functional, and ordinary citizens bore the brunt of the cost.
The post-2019 governance framework was designed to break decisively from this legacy. The state was repositioned primarily as a service provider, not as a platform for ideological negotiation. Infrastructure development, healthcare, electricity supply, welfare delivery, transparent recruitment, and strengthened local governance became the benchmarks of political performance. Authority began to be measured by outcomes rather than rhetoric.
Within this framework, the Centre’s engagement with Jammu & Kashmir reflects principled cooperation. Party affiliation is not the issue; the quality and direction of governance are. Governments that operate with constitutional discipline, administrative seriousness, and a commitment to national integration receive full support. Politics driven by grievance, ambiguity, or historical romanticism does not.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s repeated assurances of cooperation with the elected government reflect this approach. They respect the democratic mandate while clearly setting expectations for responsible governance. The message is not ideological imposition, but constitutional alignment governs, delivers, and strengthens institutions rather than revives political narratives that previously weakened them.
This distinction is especially important given the region’s political history, where governance and factional ideology were often fused. That fusion reduced accountability and undermined state capacity. The costs of that model are now widely recognised across political lines.
The present moment offers Jammu & Kashmir a clear choice. Nationalist governance would prioritise predictable administration, transparent recruitment, empowered local bodies, uninterrupted public services, and fair grievance redress. It would affirm that national integration strengthens democracy rather than limiting it.
This argument does not reject political debate or regional aspirations. Instead, it calls for politics to be disciplined by institutions and for democracy to be anchored in governance rather than mobilisation. In conflict-affected regions, public trust is rebuilt not through historical narratives, but through reliable institutions- functioning schools, accessible healthcare, and impartial administration.
Jammu & Kashmir’s experience stands as a warning against factionalist governance. When political power is driven by ideology rather than public service, instability follows. By backing governance that is constitutional, nationalist, and development-oriented, the Union Government seeks to prevent a return to that cycle.
Ultimately, the region’s future depends on its leadership’s willingness to prioritise governance over factionalism. The Centre’s stance remains consistent: it will firmly support administrations that strengthen institutions and national unity, but not approaches that history has shown to be destabilising. After decades of extraordinary politics, Jammu & Kashmir now has a pivotal opportunity to secure lasting stability and shared progress by embracing the discipline of ordinary, nationalist governance. The choice is clear: lasting peace and development require commitment to effective, constitutional, and people-focused leadership.
(The author is LOP, Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
