Omar Abdullah’s confession raises question over legitimacy of installed set-up in IIOJK
Srinagar: The admission by Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir’s Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah, that he does not have control over the police has evoked debate regarding the legitimacy of the installed setup and the nature of governance in the territory following elections.
According to Kashmir Media Service, critics and analysts argue that Abdullah’s statement exposes the reality of the so-called democratic landscape in occupied Jammu and Kashmir, where New Delhi remains in direct control through Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha.
Analysts further noted that in a democratic setup, a Chief Minister is expected to be the head of the state’s executive and hold authority over law enforcement. However, if the police are directly controlled by New Delhi, it undermines the concept of local governance. This raises fundamental questions about the democratic functioning of the territory, casting doubt on the legitimacy of elections and the resulting government.
Omar Abdullah’s statement serves as an acknowledgment of the complex political realities in occupied Jammu and Kashmir, where power dynamics reinforce the perception of a “powerless” Chief Minister, with decision-making authority concentrated in New Delhi’s hands.
Omar Abdullah’s assertion that the ban on the Awami Action Committee (AAC) and Jammu and Kashmir Ittehadul Muslimeen (JKIM) was beyond his control further highlights the territory’s political complexities. The imposition of such bans, often dictated by the Indian government, reflects that Abdullah is merely a nominal Chief Minister, with New Delhi and its Lieutenant Governor exercising real authority. Critics argue that he is being used as a political pawn to serve BJP-RSS agendas in occupied Kashmir.
The notion of a powerless Chief Minister arises from the perception that Abdullah, despite holding office, lacks actual decision-making power. In a functioning democracy, the Chief Minister should have the authority to govern, yet the BJP-led Indian government continues to wield total control over the territory.
This situation underscores the broader debate surrounding occupied Jammu and Kashmir’s political status, particularly in the aftermath of Article 370’s abrogation in 2019, which further eroded any semblance of local autonomy.
Analysts questioned the National Conference (NC) regarding the promises made in its election manifesto, including: Restoration of Articles 370 & 35A, Repeal of the Public Safety Act (PSA), Indo-Pak dialogue and regional peace, Autonomy and constitutional safeguards, Opposition to the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) & Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).
Critics pointed out that the land, forests, and resources of the terriotry are under threat. Vast tracts of agricultural land and thousands of trees in forests have been affected by so-called development projects, raising suspicions that the BJP’s destructive policies in Kashmir are now extending to land appropriation.
They urged Omar Abdullah to take a firm stand on Article 370, 35A, and other crucial issues, emphasizing that, despite having 50 MLAs, his government remains silent on these matters. The illegal abrogation of Article 370, they said, was solely intended to facilitate the exploitation of occupied Jammu and Kashmir, allowing outsiders to dominate contracts, jobs, and administrative positions— from mining to other key sectors.
Meanwhile, local traders in Jammu are facing economic crises as the BJP-led administration continues to marginalize the local population, depriving them of their livelihoods. Critics warned that if Omar Abdullah fails to respect the people’s mandate and continues to align with the Hindutva-driven BJP government, it could have serious consequences for the National Conference in the future.
