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 This reminded people of the draconian clampdown in 2019 when J&K’s special status was revoked.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

Delhi Jal Board under fire as CAG finds 55% groundwater unfit for consumption

By A Representative   A Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India audit report tabled in the Delhi Legislative Assembly on 7 January 2026 has revealed alarming lapses in the quality and safety of drinking water supplied by the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), raising serious public health concerns for residents of the capital. 

Advocacy group decries 'hyper-centralization' as States’ share of health funds plummets

By A Representative   In a major pre-budget mobilization, the Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (JSA), India’s leading public health advocacy network, has issued a sharp critique of the Union government’s health spending and demanded a doubling of the health budget for the upcoming 2026-27 fiscal year. 

Pairing not with law but with perpetrators: Pavlovian response to lynchings in India

By Vikash Narain Rai* Lynch-law owes its name to James Lynch, the legendary Warden of Galway, Ireland, who tried, condemned and executed his own son in 1493 for defrauding and killing strangers. But, today, what kind of a person will justify the lynching for any reason whatsoever? Will perhaps resemble the proverbial ‘wrong man to meet at wrong road at night!’

Stands 'exposed': Cavalier attitude towards rushed construction of Char Dham project

By Bharat Dogra*  The nation heaved a big sigh of relief when the 41 workers trapped in the under-construction Silkyara-Barkot tunnel (Uttarkashi district of Uttarakhand) were finally rescued on November 28 after a 17-day rescue effort. All those involved in the rescue effort deserve a big thanks of the entire country. The government deserves appreciation for providing all-round support.

Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar’s views on religion as Tagore’s saw them

By Harasankar Adhikari   Religion has become a visible subject in India’s public discourse, particularly where it intersects with political debate. Recent events, including a mass Gita chanting programme in Kolkata and other incidents involving public expressions of faith, have drawn attention to how religion features in everyday life. These developments have raised questions about the relationship between modern technological progress and traditional religious practice.

Jayanthi Natarajan "never stood by tribals' rights" in MNC Vedanta's move to mine Niyamigiri Hills in Odisha

By A Representative The Odisha Chapter of the Campaign for Survival and Dignity (CSD), which played a vital role in the struggle for the enactment of historic Forest Rights Act, 2006 has blamed former Union environment minister Jaynaynthi Natarjan for failing to play any vital role to defend the tribals' rights in the forest areas during her tenure under the former UPA government. Countering her recent statement that she rejected environmental clearance to Vendanta, the top UK-based NMC, despite tremendous pressure from her colleagues in Cabinet and huge criticism from industry, and the claim that her decision was “upheld by the Supreme Court”, the CSD said this is simply not true, and actually she "disrespected" FRA.

Zhou Enlai: The enigmatic premier who stabilized chaos—at what cost?

By Harsh Thakor*  Zhou Enlai (1898–1976) served as the first Premier of the People's Republic of China (PRC) from 1949 until his death and as Foreign Minister from 1949 to 1958. He played a central role in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for over five decades, contributing to its organization, military efforts, diplomacy, and governance. His tenure spanned key events including the Long March, World War II alliances, the founding of the PRC, the Korean War, and the Cultural Revolution. 

Uttarakhand tunnel disaster: 'Question mark' on rescue plan, appraisal, construction

By Bhim Singh Rawat*  As many as 40 workers were trapped inside Barkot-Silkyara tunnel in Uttarkashi after a portion of the 4.5 km long, supposedly completed portion of the tunnel, collapsed early morning on Sunday, Nov 12, 2023. The incident has once again raised several questions over negligence in planning, appraisal and construction, absence of emergency rescue plan, violations of labour laws and environmental norms resulting in this avoidable accident.

'Threat to farmers’ rights': New seeds Bill sparks fears of rising corporate control

By Bharat Dogra  As debate intensifies over a new seeds bill, groups working on farmers’ seed rights, seed sovereignty and rural self-reliance have raised serious concerns about the proposed legislation. To understand these anxieties, it is important to recognise a global trend: growing control of the seed sector by a handful of multinational companies. This trend risks extending corporate dominance across food and farming systems, jeopardising the livelihoods and rights of small farmers and raising serious ecological and health concerns. The pending bill must be assessed within this broader context.