The Periphery as Mirror

The bewilderment and resentment that many across the country express toward developments in the country’s peripheries, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir, may, at first glance, seem understandable. Yet it is profoundly misguided to assume, as successive governments have subtly encouraged, that the political fate of Jammu and Kashmir has no bearing on the rest of India. For decades, citizens have been assured that New Delhi’s interventions in the region were undertaken for the “greater good” of both Jammu and Kashmir and the nation at large. The broader public remains only dimly aware that the people of Jammu and Kashmir have historically been ruled over rather than governed, pushed to the wall rather than taken along. Dominant narratives, shaped by misinformation, political sloganeering, and selective truths, have substituted substantive engagement. These discourses, manufactured not only by those in power but echoed by sections of the opposition, work in tandem to reaffirm the myth that New Delhi’s policies are inherently benevolent or unquestioningly necessary. The paradox, however, is that such rhetoric has long concealed the absence of genuine democratic engagement with the very people most affected.

Post 2019 far right led by BJP

The consolidation of a rightward political shift and the intensification of authoritarian tendencies after the general elections of 2019 were seen or manifested in Jammu and Kashmir by bifurcation of erstwhile state into two union territories and the unconditional abrogation of the most debated provision of Indian constitution article 370.

While much of the public celebrated developments that, for many, neither directly served their interests nor materially affected their lives, the same session saw the passage of numerous additional bills that significantly eroded the autonomy and independence of key state institutions. Beyond that, the government aggressively pursued the policies that further weakened India’s economic sovereignty through expansive privatisation and tax concessions to large corporate groups. The cumulative impact of these changes; legislative, institutional, and economic; has had severe consequences for people’s livelihoods across the country. Ironically, those most adversely affected are often the same citizens who celebrated what was framed as the subjugation of an “imaginary enemy”, without recognising the deeper costs borne by the majority. Political theorist Pratap Bhanu Mehta has warned that this emerging trajectory may lead to the “Kashmirization of India”, the extension of exceptionalism from the margins to the mainland.

Since then these dynamics have only intensified. A far more deceptive narrative being circulated, absorbed almost subconsciously by the public, that the abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of the state have “resolved” the Jammu and Kashmir question once and for all. But in reality, the sections of population from Jammu to Leh who initially embraced the changes now speak openly of betrayal and disillusionment. Nationally, this period has been accompanied by toppled state governments, the incarceration of opposition leaders, and the rise of what many have labelled a “bulldozer raj”. Dissent has been stifled, and allegations of electoral roll manipulation have surfaced. These developments underscore a deepening democratic malaise.

To cover up this both institutional as we as constitutional fraud central government argues that the abrogation of Article 370 and the conversion of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories have achieved “full integration” with India. However, this raises a series of fundamental questions. If “integration” was only accomplished in 2019, does that imply the earlier accession, supported by both leadership of Jammu and Kashmir and the people, was incomplete? More troubling still: what legitimacy can be claimed for an integration executed under an unprecedented lockdown and communication blackout? Such an event resembles coercion more than constitutional unity, subjugation more than federal accommodation.

Equally untenable is the assertion that Article 370 or elected state governments were responsible for violence in Jammu and Kashmir. Violence has continued from targeted civilian killings, to the killings of security personnel, from Pahalgam to Red fort, despite the new political and administrative arrangements. The central government’s promises of development and employment have proven hollow: unemployment rates remain among the highest in India, and investment levels remain stagnant, directly contradicting official claims of a transformative economic revival.

No political question can be declared resolved simply because the state has imposed a solution; it can be resolved only when the people concerned accept, internalize, and participate in shaping the outcome. By that measure, the claim of resolution in August 2019 collapses immediately. Only after the intervention of judiciary, New Delhi steped back to its old tactics of involving the dissent into the politics of democracy by holding the assembly elections of 2024. These elections were significant; not only they were conducted after a decade long interval, these elections gave the people in Jammu and Kashmir an opportunity to express their dissent to the action of August 5 2019. People were much aware that any kind of assembly, more so the UT assembly will be subjected to the consent of the Lieutenant Governor appointed by central government. The voting was in a way a means of their dissent.

Since the formation of the elected government, its ability to function effectively has been constrained. Several provisions introduced after the 2019 reorganisation appear not to be implemented in practice. A substantial proportion of Union Territory cadre positions continue to be occupied by officers from the All Indian Service, thereby limiting the discretionary space available to the elected government for essential administrative functioning. This trend is particularly evident in the Revenue Department; one of the most critical sectors, where key state/UT-level posts remain outside the control of the elected government. Transfers of officials ranging from Additional Deputy Commissioners and Sub-Divisional Magistrates to Tehsildars and even Patwaris cannot be undertaken by the elected government.

Justifications for these constraints often rely on the argument that these positions fall under “law and order” because they carry magisterial responsibilities. Yet, when posts originating from non–law and order departments are vested with magisterial powers, this interpretation effectively allows the administration to place any officer in any position without consulting the elected government. This logic, if applied broadly, risks undermining the very purpose of representative governance.

The central government, acting through the Lieutenant Governor, may perceive these measures as strategically necessary or administratively efficient. However, citizens today are far more politically aware and capable of recognising the implications of such arrangements. In the long run, these practices are likely to erode democratic norms and weaken institutional trust. Ultimately, it is the Indian state and its democratic credibility in J&K that stand to be most adversely affected, whether through the persistence of a dual-governance structure or the continued dilution of the authority of elected representatives.

Indian’s secular democratic vision and Jammu and Kashmir

As far-right movements consolidate globally and within India, it becomes essential to examine their resurgence with intellectual honesty. The contemporary Indian far right cannot be understood in isolation; it must be situated within a broader historical trajectory shaped by colonial policy, communal mobilization, and the ruptures of Partition. The national movement rejected religious nationalism in favour of a secular democratic polity, however, the trauma of Partition cast doubt on whether India could sustain the pluralistic vision articulated by Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and their contemporaries.

In this fraught moment, both Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru expressed profound despair. Nehru declared, “I would resign if the country did not support me; but as long as I am at the helm of affairs, India will not become a Hindu state.” Gandhi echoed a similar anguish: “Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs cannot continue to live the way they are living now. It pains me deeply… If I cannot do what my heart desires, I shall not feel happy to remain alive.” Their words captured a shared anxiety over the survival of secular India.

It was Jammu and Kashmir, paradoxically, that rejuvenated this vision. At the moment of its accession, the people of Jammu and Kashmir demonstrated that Muslims could stand firmly for secular ideals and reject the “Two-Nation Theory” underpinning Pakistan’s creation. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s leadership and the collective ethos of Kashmiris enabled a rare and powerful decoupling of nationalism from religious intolerance. They became enduring symbols of secularism in the subcontinent.

Unfortunately, similar fabricated discourse was propagated across the rest of the country in 1950s to facilitate constitutional fraud and justify the arrest of the Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah not only the most influential political leader of Jammu and Kashmir but also a figure without whom India’s global image as a secular and democratic nation would have been difficult to envision. He was imprisoned not for anti-national conduct but for reminding the central leadership of the secular vision they had once espoused. This ideological trajectory manifested through political strategies that normalized majoritarianism and institutionalized the systematic marginalization of minority and linguistic communities; particularly the people of Jammu and Kashmir, whose inclusion had been central to the making of India as a secular federal nation.

This ideological compromise paved the way for the dismissal of democratically elected governments across India, from Kerala in 1959 to Karnataka in 1971, from the sweeping dismissals of 1977 and 1980 to Andhra Pradesh in 1984. Jammu and Kashmir, however, was subjected to even more intrusive political engineering, invariably justified under the banner of “national security.” The periphery became a laboratory for political experiments later replicated across the country.

Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s Jammu and Kashmir: Essential to India’s Secular and Democratic Future

The federal structure drafted by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel when they finalized the draft of Article 370 at Patel’s residence in Delhi reflected a model of federalism that has been globally recognized for its capacity to accommodate and celebrate diversity with dignity. He not only secured a distinct constitutional position for Jammu and Kashmir but also contributed to giving the Indian Constitution its credit of being an asymmetrical federal structure, in which diverse regions and groups could participate meaningfully in decision-making. Moreover, the land reforms and educational initiatives he championed in the Naya Kashmir manifesto, he demonstrated to the world that such transformative socio-economic changes were possible only within India’s federal democratic framework, not within Pakistan.

In this moment of secular and democratic crisis, a more critical national conversation is urgently needed to interrogate these distortions and to correct the democratic deficit they sustain. When a wide spectrum of leaders from Rahul Gandhi and M. K. Stalin to Pinarayi Vijayan, Mamata Banerjee, Bhagwant Mann, and others across the INDIA alliance, alongside intellectuals, journalists, activists, and academics, are shaping a national discourse on constitutionalism, the exclusion of Jammu and Kashmir from these conversations is striking and indefensible.

Debates on India’s constitutional future regularly invoke Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and B.R Ambedkar, and others but these narratives remain incomplete without acknowledging Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, a central architect of India’s secular and democratic foundations. Any meaningful account of the nation’s constitutional ethos must include the contributions of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and the people of Kashmir, whose political choices helped anchor India’s pluralist identity.

Carrying forward their legacy demands a sustained national struggle and an honest political discourse aimed at restoring the full constitutional rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir; from statehood to the reinstatement of their special status. Such restoration is essential not only for justice in Jammu and Kashmir but also for revitalizing Centre–State relations and safeguarding the federal character of the Indian Union itself.

Irfan Gull, Provisional Executive Committee Member, Jammu and Kashmir Youth National Conference.(JKYNC)