NC’s Power of Being Powerless

There is something rather unusual about governance in Jammu and Kashmir today.

We have a Chief Minister. We have a Council of Ministers. We have departments headed by ministers. We have an Assembly debating legislation. We have budgets involving more than a lakh crore rupees. And we have government Bills being introduced and passed.

Yet we repeatedly hear about a government with virtually “no powers.”

So perhaps the time has come to ask a simpler question: If Omar Abdullah has no powers, who exactly is governing Jammu and Kashmir?

Let one thing be stated at the outset. Jammu and Kashmir is a Union Territory, not a full-fledged state. Omar Abdullah does not possess all the powers enjoyed by the Chief Minister of an ordinary state.

Police and public order are specifically excluded from the legislative competence of the J&K Assembly. The Lieutenant Governor also occupies a substantially more powerful position than a conventional state Governor. Financial legislation can require the LG’s recommendation, while Bills passed by the Assembly ultimately require assent or other action under the statutory process.

Therefore, the demand for restoration of statehood and the argument that J&K’s elected government should have greater powers are perfectly distinct questions from whether the present government has no power at all.

Because the law says something rather different.

Section 32 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act expressly allows the Legislative Assembly to make laws on matters in the State List, except Public Order and Police, as well as matters in the Concurrent List applicable to Union Territories.

And Omar Abdullah himself once appeared to recognise this distinction.

On June 20, 2025, he told reporters: “I have never said LG has all the powers.” He went further: after describing security and law and order as the LG’s responsibility, he said, “Rest of the responsibilities are ours.”

Then, on July 21, 2026, while explaining why statehood was essential before meaningful power-sharing with the Centre could be discussed, Omar said: “A Union Territory has no powers. There is no state list or a concurrent list.”

The context of that second statement matters: Omar was arguing that a Union Territory cannot negotiate constitutional power-sharing with the Centre in the manner a state can.

But taken literally as a description of the authority available to his elected government, “no powers” sits awkwardly beside both the Reorganisation Act and his government’s own legislative record.

How Many Bills Did a “Powerless” NC Government Introduce in the Last Two Years?

The first eight 2025 government Bills are confirmed in Assembly/PRS records: three were introduced and passed in the March session and five more in October.

In the 2026 Budget Session, Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather reported that eight government Bills were received, eight introduced and eight passed. These included Bills dealing with decriminalisation, discrimination against persons affected by leprosy, civil courts, appropriations and private universities.

And the legislative process continues in the present session. A Cooperative Societies Amendment Bill was introduced on September 21 and subsequently passed, while Omar Abdullah himself introduced a Bill on September 24 to amend the J&K Municipal Act.

Eighteen government Bills introduced. Seventeen already passed.

That does not prove that Omar Abdullah enjoys the powers of a state Chief Minister.

He doesn’t.

But neither does it resemble a legislature possessing no authority whatsoever.

The Budget makes the same point.

Omar Abdullah presented the 2026-27 Budget himself. Expenditure excluding debt repayment was estimated at about ₹1.06 lakh crore. The Budget contained decisions concerning education, agriculture, food support, LPG assistance, infrastructure and numerous other areas of civilian governance.

A government deciding how such expenditure should be allocated cannot reasonably discuss governance as though every administrative switch lies in Raj Bhavan.

The more useful question therefore is not whether Omar has all the powers.

Clearly, he does not.

The question is: What has he done with the powers he does have?

If a policing decision is questioned, the elected government can legitimately point towards the constitutional division of authority.

But if a hospital is dysfunctional, identify who controls Health.

If a school is deteriorating, ask who runs Education.

If tourism policy falters, identify who heads Tourism.

If agricultural schemes fail, identify the Agriculture Department.

If municipal services collapse, ask who exercises authority over Housing and Urban Development.

For every governmental failure, there should therefore be one simple test:

Was this prevented by the LG – or was it within the elected government’s own sphere?

That would be a far more useful public debate than reducing everything to the single expression “Union Territory.”

So, Is Omar Abdullah Lying?

That question needs care.

To call something a lie requires more than showing that a statement is inaccurate. It means establishing that the speaker knowingly said something he believed to be false.

We cannot establish Omar Abdullah’s state of mind merely from political speeches.

But the public can certainly compare his statements.

In June 2025 he said that beyond security and law and order, “the rest of the responsibilities are ours.”

In July 2026 he said a Union Territory has “no powers” and “no state list or a concurrent list,” in the context of arguing for statehood.

Meanwhile, his government has introduced 18 Bills, got 17 of them passed so far, presented budgets, administered civilian departments and legislated in areas ranging from taxation to tenancy and universities.

So instead of trying to read Omar Abdullah’s mind, perhaps the electorate should ask him something considerably more precise:

Mr Abdullah, tell us which powers you don’t have. Then tell us what you have done with the ones you do.

Better still, publish a two-column document.

Column One: Decisions the elected government wanted to take but which the LG or Union Government formally prevented.

Column Two: Decisions and departments in which the elected government was free to act.

Then people can judge responsibility on evidence rather than political rhetoric.

Restoration of statehood is one question.

Accountability for exercising the authority already available is another.

The two should not be confused.

And perhaps Omar Abdullah himself provided the best yardstick long before this debate became convenient:

“The rest of the responsibilities are ours.”

Those may ultimately prove to be the six most important words by which his government should be examined.

That is the Bitter Truth.