The situation in Jammu and Kashmir remains delicate. The return of politics was never going to be smooth. But a government without authority is always at risk of becoming a government without purpose.
It has been eight months since the return of an elected government in Jammu and Kashmir. After years of political vacuum and bureaucratic rule under the Union Territory administration, many hoped the formation of a new government would mark the beginning of genuine political restoration. The return of Omar Abdullah to the helm was seen as a symbolic moment. It represented the re-emergence of representative politics in a region where democracy had long been suspended in practice, if not in name. But now, months into office, the promises of revival are being tested by the hard limits of the present constitutional arrangement.
The truth is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. This is not the same office that Omar Abdullah once held. As a Union Territory, Jammu and Kashmir no longer enjoy the autonomy and administrative powers it had as a full-fledged state. Vital departments like public order, police, land, and civil services are no longer under the control of the elected government. Decision-making is filtered through a centralised bureaucracy that reports not to the Chief Minister but to New Delhi. The political leadership may have returned, but the powers that define meaningful governance have not.
Omar Abdullah has started to acknowledge this. In recent interviews and public remarks, there is a noticeable shift in tone. He has begun to tacitly admit that the government may not be able to deliver fully on the promises made during the campaign. That admission, though cautious and measured, reflects the growing awareness within the government that the expectations of the electorate are running ahead of the realities of governance.
This gap between promise and power poses a serious risk to the credibility of the present government. Voters may not always grasp the nuances of constitutional arrangements. What they see is an elected Chief Minister and an elected government. What they expect is delivery. When roads remain in disrepair, unemployment continues to rise, and local governance appears sluggish, they are unlikely to make a distinction between what the government wants to do and what it is actually allowed to do. The result is a potential erosion of trust at the very moment the political class is trying to rebuild its connection with the public.
There is also a growing debate within political circles about whether the National Conference moved too fast in forming a government. Some believe the decision was premature. They argue that the party, having emerged as the dominant electoral force, should have used its mandate to press harder for the restoration of full statehood before stepping into office. By entering government under the current UT framework, the NC may have surrendered the leverage that a post-election bargaining position could have provided. Others believe that entering the government was a strategic decision to re-enter the political space after years of enforced silence. Either way, the gamble now appears to be backfiring.
The larger concern is that there is still no roadmap from the Centre for the return of full statehood. The Union Home Minister did promise its restoration on the floor of Parliament, but since then, there has been a steady silence. No timeline has been shared. No policy paper has been issued. For many in Kashmir, this silence feels deliberate. It reinforces the perception that the Centre is comfortable with the status quo and is in no haste to fulfil its promise.
This leaves Omar and his government in a peculiar position. On one side, they are accountable to the people. On the other hand, they are bound by the limits set by the Centre. Their actions are scrutinised daily, but their space to act is narrow. This creates a continuous dilemma for the Chief Minister. He has to maintain public confidence without overpromising. He has to perform within a framework that does not allow much performance. And he has to lead a government that cannot govern in the fullest sense of the term.
It is not an enviable task. But it is a task that requires clarity of purpose. The Abdullah-led government must now focus on two parallel strategies. First, it must deliver whatever is possible within the existing structure. This means fixing what can be fixed — improving service delivery, responding to citizen grievances, reviving administrative discipline, and using every available space to make local governance more responsive.
Second, and equally important, the government must make a sustained and consistent case for the restoration of full statehood. This case must not be episodic. It must be articulated through a coordinated political campaign, rooted in constitutional logic and democratic necessity. The people must be made aware of what the current structure lacks and why full statehood is not a luxury but a right. Delhi too must be reminded that democracy in name without power in substance is a contradiction.
The situation in Jammu and Kashmir remains delicate. The return of politics was never going to be smooth. But a government without authority is always at risk of becoming a government without purpose. For Omar, the challenge now is not just to manage the government or pass administrative orders. It is to restore a sense of political meaning in a place where too much has been hollowed out.
Only time will tell whether this balance between limited governance and the larger demand for political dignity can be maintained. But what is clear is that the current arrangement cannot be the final destination. For Kashmir’s democracy to heal, the people must be given back not just their vote, but their voice.
The writer is a student of Political Studies
Faisal Banday
fa*************@***il.com