There is something impressive about a chief minister who wins an election and then spends the remainder of his term explaining why winning it was practically useless. Omar Abdullah is slowly perfecting this art. He occupies the chair, commands a large legislative mandate, presides over ministers – and increasingly speaks like a gentleman who wandered into government while searching for the opposition benches.
This is where the Kejriwal comparison begins. Not because Omar wears a muffler or intends to launch a broom in Kashmir. The resemblance lies in a political habit: converting every constitutional limitation into a daily grievance, every disagreement with the Centre into a morality play, and every administrative question into proof that someone else has hidden the government’s toolbox.
The Chief Protester
Granted that his demand for restoration of statehood is legitimate. Jammu and Kashmir was reduced to a Union Territory, and its elected government operates within genuine constraints. Omar is entitled – indeed expected – to press New Delhi. But entitlement to protest does not require transforming protest into the government’s principal department.
The National Conference scheduled a Jantar Mantar demonstration for July 20. Congress and the CPI(M) agreed to participate, while the PDP and People’s Conference stayed away. Omar later returned from Delhi to monitor floods in Rajouri, leaving Farooq Abdullah to lead the protest – a responsible decision. Yet the larger spectacle remains curious: a ruling party travelling to Delhi to demonstrate that it rules under protest.
The average citizen may ask whether the chief minister has become the chief petitioner. A protester is judged by how loudly he raises a problem. A government is judged by how quietly it removes one.
Statehood: The All-Purpose Explanation
Arvind Kejriwal discovered that the Lieutenant Governor could serve as an all-season political umbrella. If it rained, the LG was responsible. If the sun appeared, one suspected a conspiracy behind the forecast. Genuine institutional conflicts existed, but repetition gradually converted explanation into reflex.
Omar appears tempted by the same convenience. Statehood is in danger of becoming the answer before the question has been asked. Greater authority? Statehood. Political frustration? Statehood. Perhaps, one day, a blocked drain in Srinagar will also be found awaiting constitutional restoration.
Recently, Omar asked sarcastically whether he should approach Donald Trump for statehood. It was a clever line and produced headlines. Unfortunately, sarcasm is not listed in the Union List, State List or Concurrent List. And, mind it, the maskhari, like his dear father, doesn’t always sound good. Governance is governance; not maskhari.
The Government of Love Letters
Then came the allegation that BJP representatives had offered an NC legislator cash, a ministerial berth and even statehood for switching sides. The BJP denied it and issued a ₹100-crore defamation notice. Omar described it as a “love letter.”
Excellent theatre. Kashmir now has accusation, counter-accusation, money, betrayal, romance and a legal notice worth ₹100 crore. All that remains is background music.
But a chief minister must decide whether he wants to be the leading man in a political serial or the executive head of an administration. Love letters may energise press conferences; they do not improve hospitals, clear garbage, create jobs, repair roads or shorten the distance between a citizen and a government office.
The Delhi Warning
Kejriwal’s politics was not without achievements. His government built a strong welfare narrative around education, health and subsidised services. But confrontation gradually became not merely a method – it became the brand. Every institution appeared hostile, every criticism orchestrated and every setback proof of persecution.
In February 2025, the BJP returned to power in Delhi after 27 years, winning 48 of 70 seats; AAP fell to 22, and Kejriwal lost his own constituency. The result does not prove grievance politics alone defeated him. It shows that even a powerful political story can expire when voters begin hearing defence more often than delivery. Kashmiris, too, have now become allergic to this theatre of absurd.
Omar should study that result more carefully than the speeches. He is not. Because, says street gossip, he is ridiculously arrogant.
The Luxury of Helplessness
There is political comfort in limited power. Success can be claimed as leadership; failure can be forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor, the Home Ministry or the constitutional arrangement. It is governance with a built-in return address.
But voters do not elect a chief minister merely to receive a guided tour of his limitations. They expect him to stretch every available power, document every obstruction, publish measurable targets and produce visible outcomes wherever authority exists.
Omar Abdullah’s greatest threat may therefore not be the BJP, Delhi or delayed statehood. It may be the seductive belief that helplessness is politically inexhaustible.
Kejriwal once turned conflict into momentum. Eventually, conflict consumed the message. Omar is approaching the same junction, carrying a mandate in one hand and a placard in the other.
Statehood must be restored. But until it is, Jammu and Kashmir still requires government – not a running commentary explaining why government is difficult.
Omar does not need anyone else to do a Kejriwal to him. With sufficient protests, press conferences and “love letters,” he may accomplish the task entirely by himself.
