Omar Abdullah to Modi Govt: Focus on Kashmiris, Not Just Kashmir | Statehood Delay & Ladakh Protests
By: Javid Amin | 29 September 2025
A Remark That Resonated Beyond Borders
When former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah stood at a book launch in Delhi in late September 2025 and said, “It’s not about Kashmir, it’s about Kashmiris,” he reframed one of India’s most polarizing national debates. His statement came at a time when the Union government is grappling with unrest in Leh, the arrest of Ladakhi climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, and growing impatience in Jammu & Kashmir over delayed statehood.
Abdullah’s words cut through the noise: they were less about political point-scoring, more about human dignity. By insisting that the focus must shift from “land” to “lives,” he positioned himself as a reformist voice in a political landscape dominated by narratives of nationalism, security, and territorial integrity.
But what does it mean to “focus on Kashmiris”? Why is this framing significant now, six years after the abrogation of Article 370? And how do recent events in Ladakh mirror the anxieties of Kashmiris about representation, dignity, and justice?
This feature dives deep into history, politics, and the present-day turmoil to understand why Abdullah’s statement could be the most important political message of 2025.
Kashmir — Territory or People? A Historical Lens
Since 1947, the Kashmir dispute has been narrated primarily through maps, borders, and control. The wars of 1947, 1965, and 1971; the Kargil conflict in 1999; and decades of cross-border militancy all framed the region as a territorial flashpoint between India and Pakistan.
For New Delhi, Kashmir symbolized sovereignty. For Islamabad, it symbolized unfinished Partition. For global powers, it was a “nuclear flashpoint.” In all of these framings, the people of Kashmir often appeared as a backdrop, not the centerpiece.
-
The Autonomy Promise (1947–1953): J&K acceded to India under special terms, with guarantees of internal autonomy.
-
The Centralization Era (1953–1987): Successive governments in Delhi eroded that autonomy, dismissing elected leaders and installing pliant regimes.
-
The Insurgency Years (1989–2000s): Armed militancy shifted focus from governance to security, with ordinary Kashmiris caught between militants and security forces.
-
The Development Narrative (2000s–2019): India sought to counter separatism with development packages, yet the democratic deficit persisted.
By 2019, when Article 370 was abrogated and J&K was downgraded to a Union Territory, the emphasis on “territory over people” reached its zenith. The promise was integration and development. The reality, many argue, has been disempowerment.
The Abrogation Aftermath — Governance Without Representation
On August 5, 2019, the Centre revoked Article 370 and bifurcated J&K into two Union Territories: J&K (with a legislative assembly) and Ladakh (without one).
-
For Kashmiris: It was perceived as a betrayal of trust and a silencing of their political voice.
-
For Ladakhis: Initially celebrated, the Union Territory status soon soured as people realized it came without safeguards for land, jobs, and culture.
-
For Delhi: It was projected as a masterstroke that ended “separatism” and integrated the region fully with India.
Six years later, both regions are restless. J&K still awaits the restoration of statehood despite repeated assurances. Ladakh is demanding either statehood or Sixth Schedule protections. The perception is clear: governance is happening to the people, not with them.
Ladakh’s Protests — A Mirror for Kashmir
The September 24 violence in Leh, which left four dead and over 100 injured, shocked observers across India. Ladakh had long been seen as a model of peaceful protest and disciplined civil society movements. Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk symbolized this peaceful push for autonomy.
Yet, when protests turned violent — with mobs torching a BJP office and police vehicles — it signaled something deeper. Betrayal. Frustration. A sense that Delhi’s promises were empty.
Omar Abdullah seized on this moment: “Ladakh wasn’t even promised statehood. They celebrated UT status in 2019. Now they feel betrayed and angry. Imagine how we in J&K feel when our promised statehood remains unfulfilled despite peaceful demands.”
By linking Ladakh’s anguish to Kashmir’s, Abdullah reframed the issue: both regions share a deficit of trust in Delhi. Both feel reduced to territories rather than communities of people.
Statehood as a Political Reward, Not a Right
Union Home Minister Amit Shah has repeatedly promised that J&K’s statehood will be restored. But the timeline remains vague.
Omar Abdullah’s controversial remark earlier this week — “As people didn’t form a BJP government, J&K hasn’t got statehood” — suggested that statehood is being used as a political carrot. Mehbooba Mufti quickly slammed him, saying he was reinforcing the BJP’s narrative.
The exchange revealed a critical tension: is statehood a constitutional right or a political favor? If rights are made conditional on voting patterns, then democracy itself is undermined.
Civil Society’s Call — Dignity Beyond Development
For years, Delhi’s pitch to Kashmiris has been development: roads, electricity, investments, job fairs. But civil society voices argue that dignity, identity, and representation matter more.
-
Tribal groups in Ladakh want Sixth Schedule safeguards to protect their land and culture.
-
Kashmiri youth demand restoration of political agency, not just infrastructure projects.
-
Religious leaders like Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, who faces repeated house arrests, highlight shrinking civil liberties.
Abdullah’s remark aligns with these sentiments: the debate must move from land and security to people and dignity.
The Global Gaze — Diplomacy, Human Rights, and Democracy
The Kashmir issue continues to resonate internationally. Turkish President Erdogan raised it again at the UNGA. A US official recently said Trump was “open to help” if both India and Pakistan agreed.
Delhi rejects external commentary, insisting Kashmir is an internal matter. Yet, unrest in both J&K and Ladakh undermines India’s democratic image at a time when global scrutiny is high. Abdullah’s “focus on people” message therefore doubles as a foreign policy strategy: human-centered governance would strengthen India’s democratic credibility abroad.
What Lies Ahead — Choices Before Delhi
The government now faces three pressing choices:
-
Restore J&K’s statehood before 2026 elections to rebuild trust.
-
Grant Ladakh constitutional safeguards through either Sixth Schedule inclusion or statehood.
-
Ease curbs on civil liberties — ending arbitrary detentions, PSA misuse, and house arrests of leaders like Mirwaiz.
If ignored, both regions risk further alienation, unrest, and erosion of democratic legitimacy.
Bottom-Line: From Land to Lives
Omar Abdullah’s call may seem simple — “It’s not about Kashmir, it’s about Kashmiris.” But in its simplicity lies its power. It reframes decades of territorial politics into a people-first vision.
As Ladakh burns and Kashmir waits, the Centre has a choice: treat these regions as trophies to be controlled, or as communities to be empowered.
History shows that peace in Kashmir cannot be built on land alone. It must be built on lives, dignity, and trust.
