In Jammu and Kashmir, there are hundreds of pressing issues demanding attention. Unemployment remains high, government offices continue to struggle with efficiency, healthcare is uneven, and drug addiction is quietly consuming an entire generation. Yet if one were to judge by the political discourse of the National Conference, the solution to every problem seems to begin and end with a single word: Statehood.
The question, however, is not why people may want statehood. The more interesting question is why Omar Abdullah appears so desperate for it. A look at the history of the National Conference, stretching from Sheikh Abdullah to the present day, offers some revealing clues.
- Statehood Means More Power, Not More Governance
The simplest explanation is often the most accurate one. As Chief Minister of a Union Territory, Omar Abdullah heads a government whose powers remain constrained by constitutional arrangements and the authority vested in the Lieutenant Governor. Restoration of statehood would naturally expand the authority of the elected government and reduce these limitations.
The public is told this is a battle for democracy and dignity. Politicians, however, understand that it is also a battle for power. More powers mean more control over administration, appointments, transfers, policy implementation and political influence. Politicians rarely wage emotional campaigns for causes that diminish their own authority.
- The Abdullah Legacy Has Always Been About Political Centrality
Since the days of Sheikh Abdullah, the National Conference has largely revolved around a single political principle: the Abdullah family must remain at the centre of Kashmir’s political landscape. The party’s history and the family’s history are so intertwined that separating one from the other often becomes difficult.
From Sheikh Abdullah to Farooq Abdullah and then to Omar Abdullah, political authority has remained concentrated within the same dynasty for generations. Statehood strengthens the political significance of Srinagar’s ruling establishment and consequently enhances the influence of those who dominate it. Dynasties rarely oppose arrangements that increase their relevance.
- Statehood Is Becoming a Convenient Political Shield
Every elected government eventually faces difficult questions. Why are jobs scarce? Why are services not improving? Why do citizens continue to face administrative hardships despite repeated promises? Delivering answers through governance is difficult. Delivering excuses is easier.
Statehood offers a convenient shield against criticism. Whenever shortcomings are highlighted, the discussion can quickly shift towards the absence of statehood and limited powers. The political conversation then moves away from performance indicators and towards constitutional debates. For politicians, explanations are often easier to produce than results.
- The Historical Pattern Never Really Changed
The National Conference’s relationship with power has always been remarkably flexible. Sheikh Abdullah fought the Maharaja, later confronted Delhi, then negotiated with Delhi, and eventually returned to power through an accord with Delhi. Over the decades, slogans changed, alliances shifted and political positions evolved according to circumstances.
What remained constant was not ideology but the pursuit of political centrality. The party repeatedly adapted its narrative to ensure that it remained the principal political force in Kashmir. Viewed through this historical lens, the present statehood campaign appears less like a constitutional crusade and more like the latest chapter in a familiar political story.
- Without Statehood, the NC Narrative Begins to Thin Out
Building roads, attracting investment, improving hospitals and generating employment require measurable achievements. These accomplishments take time and expose governments to scrutiny. Statehood, on the other hand, is politically far more convenient. It is symbolic, emotional and difficult to measure.
As long as statehood dominates the conversation, public attention remains focused on what has not yet been delivered by Delhi rather than on what has already been delivered—or not delivered—by the government in Srinagar. It is a narrative that can be sustained indefinitely without producing a single kilometre of road or a single new job.
- Statehood Revives the Victimhood Narrative
Perhaps the greatest political value of the statehood campaign lies in its ability to revive a familiar narrative of grievance. Every delay can be portrayed as discrimination. Every disagreement can be framed as injustice. Every criticism can be redirected towards New Delhi rather than inward towards governance failures.
This approach is not new. Victimhood has long been among the most durable currencies in Kashmir politics. Statehood provides an opportunity to replenish that political capital. It allows leaders to project themselves as defenders of public rights while simultaneously insulating themselves from uncomfortable questions about their own performance.
The Real Bitter Truth
The greatest irony is that ordinary Kashmiris do not wake up every morning worrying about constitutional architecture. They worry about employment, electricity, healthcare, education, business opportunities, inflation, corruption and the future of their children. These concerns are immediate, tangible and deeply personal.
Statehood may well be restored one day. Most political observers believe that it eventually will be. But if statehood were restored tomorrow morning, unemployment would not disappear by evening. Corruption would not vanish overnight. Hospitals would not suddenly improve, and drug addiction would not retreat before breakfast.
That is the bitter truth. Statehood may indeed be important for Jammu and Kashmir. Yet judging by the intensity of the campaign surrounding it, one cannot escape the impression that it appears even more important for those whose political influence expands with every additional transfer of power. For the common citizen, it is one issue among many. For the political class, it has become the issue. And that difference perhaps explains the desperation better than any constitutional argument ever could.
