K B Jandial
Over four months have elapsed since Omar Abdullah took office as the inaugural Chief Minister of the Union Territory (UT) of Jammu and Kashmir. Following a highly charged election campaign against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in September-October 2024, Omar received a clear mandate from the electorate, being the only party to secure seats in both regions of the UT. However, contrary to the expectations of opposition leaders within the INDIA bloc, he has not embraced a combative approach like that of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Instead, Omar has positioned himself as a calm and experienced politician, moving away from the historically anti-Delhi, anti-Modi, and anti-Jammu sentiments often linked with his party, the National Conference (NC). His diplomatic approach has included sporadic praise for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and critical remarks directed at his political allies in the Congress and the INDIA bloc. This has raised speculation about the NC potentially rejoining the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), a coalition it had previously been part of. Omar’s father, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, the NC President, once observed that in politics, no party is truly untouchable, which echoes their current political maneuvering.
Political analysts continue to ponder Omar’s long-term strategy. Despite the limitations that come with governing a UT, he has effectively managed the region without engaging in disputes with the Lieutenant Governor (LG) or the Central Government regarding his powers or the delay in restoring full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. While some hardline members of his party express concern over this approach, Omar appears unhurried. During a surprising media interaction, he remarked that governing a UT was “easier than anticipated.”
Omar has aptly questioned the constitutional framework for a Union Territory with a Legislative Assembly. His argument stands that if an elected government in a UT has restricted governance powers and operates under dual power centers, the existence of an Assembly becomes questionable. He suggests that without granting the elected government enough authority to meet the aspirations of the people, only two types of administrative units can exist: a State and a Union Territory (without an Assembly, like Ladakh). His insights carry merit.
Despite the constitutional constraints on UT governments, neither Omar nor Dr. Farooq Abdullah has openly criticized the Central Government for withholding statehood, although they approach the topic positively. It’s unlikely they are oblivious to the Modi Government’s reluctance to restore statehood soon. Nonetheless, Omar has opted to maintain a politically calm demeanor. Rather than resorting to confrontational politics, he has chosen to focus on governance, utilizing the powers available within the current framework. It remains to be seen if these efforts produce substantial results on the ground.
Political parties campaigning in a UT are acutely aware of the limited powers of a UT government. Even Kejriwal recognized these restrictions, yet upon assuming office in Delhi, he opted for constant political battles, instituting a climate of unrest and instability. His time was consumed by conflicts with the LG and the Central Government rather than prioritizing effective governance. Despite these frequent confrontations, he managed to retain his political charm through populist strategies, incentives, and a carefully crafted victim narrative.
Omar Abdullah, in contrast, has consciously eschewed Kejriwal’s confrontational politics, opting instead for a more constructive path. He seems committed to operating within the boundaries of a UT governance framework, resisting the allure of a Kashmir-Delhi political showdown, which might create media attention yet would not guarantee support or special funding from the Central Government to address the urgent needs of the populace. In a media session in Srinagar, Omar reflected on his government’s initial two months in power, stating, “We have been in power for more than two months now. It took us some time to grasp how a government in a UT functions… It was easier than anticipated.” He reiterated his party’s pledge to fulfill their electoral promises, acknowledging the people’s clear mandate for the NC to govern. The true challenge lies in delivering those promises amidst the constraints posed by the UT’s temporary status and the dual authority shared between the Chief Minister and the LG.
A significant and candid assertion by Omar was that the Central Government was not obstructing his administration. He dismissed political rumors of interference or pressure from Delhi, moving away from the usual narrative employed by many non-Central Governments in Jammu and Kashmir to spur political discord. Omar emphasized that both the Prime Minister and the Home Minister had assured him of their unwavering support and recognized the people’s electoral mandate. However, he also indicated that if these assurances did not manifest in tangible cooperation, he might need to reevaluate his government’s relationship with the center. His approach prioritizes cooperation over confrontation, reserving the latter for last resort scenarios.
Regardless of which party holds power at the Centre, adopting a confrontational stance towards a sensitive region like Jammu and Kashmir is ill-advised, even post the abrogation of Article 370. The historical tensions between Delhi and Srinagar reveal that political discord has invariably been detrimental to both Kashmir and the nation as a whole. With elections largely concluded, it is imperative to set aside political hostilities and prioritize governance in Jammu and Kashmir. Stability, development, and the welfare of the people should take precedence. If these goals are achieved, both the Modi Government and Omar Abdullah’s administration will gain recognition for their contributions. Supporting Omar could assist in maintaining order among hardline factions within his party, which would further stabilize the region. From the perspective of the Central Government, enabling a democratically elected leader to operate effectively under the UT framework could serve as a means to showcase the benefits of enhancing democracy and federalism in Jammu and Kashmir.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Modi administration is not in a rush to reinstate statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. Given this context, a more pragmatic approach would entail fostering a political and administrative climate that allows Omar’s Government greater leeway within the UT framework. It is perplexing that even five months after the establishment of the democratic government, the business rules delineating the authority of each entity have yet to be finalized, leaving the bureaucracy in a state of uncertainty and confusion. He deserves some latitude beyond the constraints of constitutional arrangements for a UT.
Unlike other UTs, Jammu and Kashmir faces unique internal security challenges. While the UT Government lacks direct control over security issues, involving the Chief Minister in security review meetings could send a positive signal to the populace and maintain favorable sentiment. Political backing from the ruling party would be advantageous in this sensitive scenario, where inadvertent harm to innocent residents during operations cannot be overlooked. Additionally, the Chief Minister should possess some influence over the transfers and postings of officers, including those within the All India Services. Exploring a governance model akin to that in Delhi for Jammu and Kashmir UT could be beneficial.
A government formed through a robust democratic process warrants better treatment. Exploring a new governance framework that addresses the historically rocky relations between elected governments and the LG in UTs is essential, especially in view of the adversarial dynamics experienced during AAP’s time in Delhi. While it may be easy to liken Omar to Kejriwal, keeping him from his political style of governance may prove to be a more arduous task in the long run.
Shifting political dynamics in J&K may indeed steer Omar towards a confrontational path. However, it is essential to recognize that his commitment to constructive governance represents a more sustainable and beneficial strategy for both the people of J&K and the nation, especially since Kashmir continues to attract international interest despite the abrogation of Article 370. This situation warrants serious consideration from the Modi Government and the BJP, as the focus should shift from narrow political tactics to national interests. Achieving lasting peace in Kashmir necessitates a mature approach that regards the aspirations of its diverse regions, fostering stability and inclusive development.
As the Jammu and Kashmir UT Budget session approaches next week, it is imperative for the BJP, as a formidable opposition party, to resist the urge to create media spectacles by disrupting the House’s orderly proceedings, a behavior evidenced in recent parliamentary scenes. Instead, they should prioritize accountability from the Government on pressing public issues, adopting a constructive rather than obstructive role in their opposition. Such a strategy, if embraced in the Temple of Democracy, would reinforce the gains from one of the most transparent electoral processes in Kashmir, characterized by unprecedented public participation.
(Feedback: [email protected])
