Bridging the Gap

When democracy returned to Jammu & Kashmir after years of direct administration, there was a surge in hope across the region. Citizens believed that their voices would once again shape governance, and that elected representatives would reconnect a disillusioned public with the institutions of the state. But one year later, that hope stands dimmed by administrative confusion and a quiet erosion of political authority.

What was expected to be a revival of participatory governance has instead raised uncomfortable questions. Despite the presence of an elected government, the real levers of power remain largely outside its control. Ministers may propose and appeal—but they cannot command. Civil servants, caught between multiple lines of authority, often err on the side of caution, leading to indecision and inaction. The result: files move, but governance stands still.

This situation in J&K bears a striking resemblance to the governance experience of the Delhi government under the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), where a similar administrative structure blurred the lines between authority and accountability. Under Article 239AA of the Constitution, Delhi was granted a unique status—an elected government coexisting with a Lieutenant Governor (LG) representing the Union.

Between 2015 and 2023, this mismatch led to repeated standoffs between the elected leadership and the administrative machinery. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which delivered two landmark rulings:

2018 Constitution Bench Judgment: The Court held that the LG was bound by the aid and advice of the elected government in all areas except Police, Land, and Public Order. It emphasized the principle of cooperative federalism, stating that the LG was not a parallel authority.

May 2023 Constitution Bench Judgment: The Court reaffirmed that the Delhi government must have legislative and executive control over services. It warned that depriving an elected government of such control would “reduce representative democracy to a mere illusion.”

Despite these clear rulings, the Union Government moved swiftly. Within days of the 2023 judgment, it issued an Ordinance—later enacted as the Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2023. This law created the National Capital Civil Services Authority (NCCSA), effectively returning bureaucratic control to the LG and the Chief Secretary, and overriding the Supreme Court’s decision.

During the period of Governor’s Rule and subsequently under the Lieutenant Governor’s administration, Jammu & Kashmir witnessed a governance model dominated entirely by the bureaucracy. In the absence of an elected government, senior civil servants assumed full responsibility for both policy formulation and execution. While this arrangement ensured administrative continuity and institutional stability, it also exposed the inherent limitations of governance without direct political representation.

Further, after the reallocation of the administrative cadre from the erstwhile “J&K Cadre” to the Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram and Union Territory (AGMUT) cadre, a new set of bureaucrats took charge of key administrative responsibilities in Jammu & Kashmir. Many of these officers, though professionally competent, were unfamiliar with the region’s unique socio-cultural fabric, geographic sensitivities, and administrative nuances. This lack of acclimatization often led to policy approaches that did not fully align with region’s diverse aspirations, sensitivities, and complex ground realities —impacting the effectiveness and relevance of governance at various levels.

In many cases, frameworks and guidelines were adopted wholesale from central models or replicated from other states, with minimal adaptation to the local context. For instance, public procurement norms often failed to account for the capacity and constraints of local businesses, inadvertently putting them at a disadvantage.

Large-scale development projects, though ambitious in scope, were frequently implemented by outside contractors, limiting the participation of local industries and workforce. Similarly, departments tasked with promoting key sectors like MSMEs, handicrafts, horticulture, and tourism increasingly took on regulatory roles, with limited emphasis on facilitation, capacity-building, or handholding—an approach ill-suited to a regional economy deeply rooted in tradition, informal networks, and community-led livelihoods.

This period highlighted the importance of political representation in policymaking—not only for democratic legitimacy but also for ensuring that development strategies are grounded in the lived experiences and needs of the people they aim to serve.

When elections were finally held, the people responded with enthusiasm, hopeful that real change would follow. But today, many feel that the promise of democracy remains unfulfilled.

However, even with a popularly elected government now in place, Jammu & Kashmir remains caught in the same structural dilemma. Real administrative authority continues to rest with the Lieutenant Governor and the Union bureaucracy, leaving the elected leadership with limited control over civil servants. Ministers may propose, appeal, and persuade—but they lack the power to direct. Meanwhile, officials, uncertain about where their true accountability lies, tend to err on the side of caution. The machinery of governance continues to function on paper—files move, but meaningful progress remains stalled.

The people, who voted with renewed faith after years of uncertainty, now see a government unable to deliver—even when it desires to. From development projects to welfare schemes, from administrative responsiveness to grievance redressal—everything bears the mark of bureaucratic hesitation.

In this atmosphere, even the most sincere elected leader appears ineffective, and the government seems indifferent—not because it lacks will, but because it lacks control. Across towns and villages, frustration is rising. Citizens are beginning to ask: What has really changed? The faces in power may be different, but the behavior of the administration feels unchanged. There is growing resentment over non-delivery and disillusionment with democratic institutions.

This is not merely a matter of efficiency; it is a question of faith in democracy. When people realize that their vote cannot influence decisions, when their elected representatives cannot command the bureaucracy, democracy becomes hollow—a ritual without substance.

The danger is not just administrative; it is deeply psychological and political. It breeds cynicism, alienation, and, ultimately, instability.

Opposition parties have begun to criticize the government for the lack of delivery. Such criticism is the lifeblood of democracy—and entirely legitimate. But as neutral members of civil society, we believe that any party in power could face the same paralysis in the wake of diluted powers. The problem is systemic, not political. It is a flaw that would cripple any government—today’s or tomorrow’s—so long as the elected leadership is deprived of authority over its administrative machinery.

No elected government—irrespective of its ideology or composition—can perform when it is denied control over its officers. Governance is not possible when authority and accountability are separated. Bureaucrats cannot be expected to serve the public with diligence unless they are accountable to those who represent the public.

The only real instrument for ensuring bureaucratic accountability is the power of transfer and posting—the possibility of disciplinary action when dereliction of duty occurs. Remove that, and the administration becomes answerable to none.

Hence, it is in the interest of all political parties—government and opposition alike—to support the restoration of administrative control to the elected leadership. Once that is ensured, the opposition will have every right, and indeed every duty, to hold the government accountable for performance. But first, the tools of governance must be returned to the hands of those chosen by the people.

Governments come and go. Parties rise and fall. But the principle of democratic authority must remain inviolable. It is not the identity of the government that matters; it is the sanctity of the system that sustains governance itself.

The elected government in Jammu & Kashmir must not be reduced to a ceremonial façade—stripped of real control while being blamed for non-performance. That would be a grave injustice not just to those in power, but to the very people who reposed faith in the ballot.

The lesson from Delhi is unambiguous: when bureaucrats are shielded from democratic accountability, governance suffers, public service collapses, and citizens lose faith in institutions. Jammu & Kashmir cannot afford to repeat that mistake.

To restore the balance between authority and accountability, the elected government must be empowered to direct and discipline its administration. The Lieutenant Governor’s role should remain within its constitutionally assigned mandate—supervisory in nature, not operational in execution. At the same time, coordination between the offices of the Lieutenant Governor and the Chief Minister must be strengthened to ensure smoother governance, avoid institutional friction, and uphold the spirit of cooperative federalism.

Only then will governance become meaningful, and democracy real. Restoring control over the bureaucracy is not a partisan demand—it is a democratic necessity.

If elected representatives are continually undermined, democracy itself will wither into symbolism. But if their rightful authority is restored, governance will regain its moral energy—and citizens will once again believe that their voice truly matters.

Shakeel Qalander, prominent business leader and a civil society animator.