Skip to main content

When the Chief Minister scales a fence: What remains of democracy in Kashmir?

By Sandeep Pandey* 
In Lucknow, we saw Akhilesh Yadav scaling the fence of the Jayaprakash Narayan International Centre—ironically built by his own government—to pay respect to the iconic Socialist leader on his birthday in 2023. The Yogi Adityanath government had denied him permission, citing security concerns. What could be the security concern in visiting a memorial is inexplicable.
What is understandable, however, is that Akhilesh Yadav is an opposition leader. But Omar Abdullah is the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. He was denied permission by Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha on 13 July to visit the graveyard of 22 Kashmiris who died on this day in 1931 in police firing ordered by the Dogra ruler Hari Singh.
These people were part of a large crowd that had gathered outside the Central Jail in Srinagar for the court hearing of Abdul Qadeer, who had called for a revolt against the king’s tyrannical rule. For the people of J&K, this incident has been part of their freedom struggle.
That struggle culminated when the ruler fled the kingdom along with his Prime Minister in the face of an attack by Pakistan-sponsored irregulars, and Sheikh Abdullah took over the leadership of the state to fight alongside the Indian Army to save Kashmir.
13 July is observed every year as Martyr’s Day in J&K. However, since 2019, when Article 370 was diluted and Article 35A was abrogated, the practice of observing a holiday on 13 July was discontinued by the administration. This move has clearly not gone down well with the people.
13 July 2025 will go down as a dark day in Indian democracy. Both the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party, the two major political parties in J&K, had requested permission from the Lieutenant Governor to observe Martyr’s Day.
The graveyard where the 22 martyrs are buried, Mazar-e-Shuhada, was kept out of bounds for the public. Once again, the LG office cited the same implausible reason: a security concern.
What was even more shameful was that CM Omar Abdullah, opposition leader Mehbooba Mufti, and other ministers and leaders were placed under house arrest. This reminded people of the draconian clampdown in 2019 when J&K’s special status was revoked.
Then, in an act of defiance, Omar Abdullah scaled the fence of Mazar-e-Shuhada the next day, 14 July, along with other ministers of his government. But not before being manhandled by his own police, who were trying to prevent him from reaching the graveyard.
It almost appears as if Omar Abdullah is fighting another freedom struggle—this time for the autonomy of his elected government, which remains under siege by the Union government-imposed administration in J&K. He has expressed his anguish, stating he has suffered silently for the past eight months.
Can we imagine, in any other Indian state, the Governor or LG placing the Chief Minister and elected Assembly members under house arrest? Or the police manhandling their own CM?
This is enough to show that the Union Government has different standards for dealing with J&K. It only held Assembly elections because of a Supreme Court order. Yet, the elected government remains subservient to the LG. There isn’t even the pretense of democracy in J&K.
It is outright rule by the Union government, with scant regard for the people’s mandate. How do we expect the people of J&K to have any faith in the Indian state?
If India wants J&K to be truly integrated, it must ensure that the people of the state enjoy the same rights as citizens in other parts of the country. Merely diluting Article 370 and revoking Article 35A has not achieved that.
The Army rule must be withdrawn, and power restored to the elected government. The first step toward this is the restoration of full statehood. What’s needed is sensitivity, but the Union government continues to rely on its usual high-handed tactics.
The key question remains: how do we end the alienation of the people of J&K—aptly described by Omar Abdullah?
Mehbooba Mufti has very poignantly asked: if Kashmiris have embraced Indian freedom fighters like Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh, why can’t the Government of India acknowledge Kashmiri freedom fighters in return?
This would honour the sentiments of the people—especially if the goal is to end the dil ki doori (distance of hearts), as Prime Minister Narendra Modi has put it.
The government’s approach is insensitive. Labeling the people Kashmiris hold in reverence as rioters only deepens mistrust. If the Union government sides with the Dogra ruler, it disrespects not only the people of J&K but also all those in princely states who fought their own rulers as part of India’s broader freedom struggle.
Mahatma Gandhi’s words are worth recalling: “The real sovereign of the state are the people. The ruler is a servant of the people. If he is not so, then he is not the ruler... In Kashmir too, the power belongs to the public.”
Is there any doubt who Gandhi would have supported between the Dogra ruler and the people his police fired upon?
It is important to note that Gandhi applied the same yardstick to Kashmiris as he did to the rest of India—something that successive Indian governments have failed to do since J&K’s accession.
The discriminatory treatment of the people of J&K—especially its elected government—by the Union government is unacceptable. J&K should be governed by the people’s mandate, not the Union’s dictates.
True democracy needs to be restored in J&K. It has been systematically undermined by successive Indian governments. Omar Abdullah’s act of defiance shows that the people of J&K remain committed to their democratic rights and will continue to fight until they are restored.
---
*General Secretary of Socialist Party (India).

Comments

TRENDING

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan  The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra   We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative   Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative   A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

From Puri to the State: How Odisha turned the dream of drinkable tap water into policy

By Hans Harelimana Hirwa, Mansee Bal Bhargava   Drinking water directly from the tap is generally associated with developed countries where it is considered safe and potable. Only about 50 countries around the world offer drinkable tap water, with the majority located in Europe and North America, and a few in Asia and Oceania. Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, and Singapore have the highest-quality tap water, followed by Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the USA, Australia, the UK, Costa Rica, and Chile.

Michael Parenti: Scholar known for critiques of capitalism and U.S. foreign policy

By Harsh Thakor*  Michael Parenti, an American political scientist, historian, and author known for his Marxist and anti-imperialist perspectives, died on January 24 at the age of 92. Over several decades, Parenti wrote and lectured extensively on issues of capitalism, imperialism, democracy, media, and U.S. foreign policy. His work consistently challenged dominant political and economic narratives, particularly those associated with Western liberal democracies and global capitalism.