Division Bell: Why the Jammu–Kashmir Divide Is Deepening Despite Article 370’s Abrogation
By: Javid Amin | 14 January 2026
When the Bell Rings for Division, Not Unity
The phrase “division bell” is usually associated with parliamentary democracy—a signal calling legislators to vote, to decide collectively on matters of national importance. But in Jammu and Kashmir today, the bell that rings most loudly is not one of consensus. It is a bell of division, echoing through classrooms, courtrooms, campuses, and political platforms.
Nearly six years after the abrogation of Article 370 and the formal merger of Jammu and Kashmir into a single Union Territory, the promise of integration appears fragile. Instead of dissolving historical fault lines, the political reconfiguration has sharpened them. The divide between Hindu-majority Jammu and Muslim-majority Kashmir—long acknowledged but politically managed—has become more explicit, more communal, and more entrenched.
This editorial-style analysis examines how the Jammu–Kashmir divide has evolved, why it has deepened after 2019, and what the growing polarization means not only for the Union Territory, but for India’s larger project of national integration.
A Divide Older Than the Union Territory
The regional and cultural distinction between Jammu and Kashmir predates both Independence and the modern Indian state. Geography, language, religion, and political experience shaped two distinct identities within the same political unit.
- Jammu evolved with stronger cultural and economic links to northern India
- Kashmir Valley developed a distinct political consciousness shaped by autonomy, conflict, and negotiations with New Delhi
For decades, this diversity was managed through political accommodation—shared capitals, regional power-sharing, and constitutional asymmetry under Article 370. The expectation in 2019 was that removing this asymmetry would create a singular political identity. The reality has been far more complex.
Article 370 and the Promise of Integration
When the Modi government abrogated Article 370 in August 2019, it framed the move as:
- The “complete integration” of Jammu and Kashmir with India
- A corrective to historical injustice
- A pathway to development, equality, and national unity
The former state was reorganized into:
- Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
- Union Territory of Ladakh
In theory, Jammu and Kashmir were now administratively one—without internal barriers, special privileges, or separate constitutional status. In practice, however, integration at the constitutional level did not translate into integration at the social or emotional level.
The Religious Fault Line: When Geography Mirrors Communal Politics
The Division Bell editorial draws a stark parallel between the Jammu–Kashmir divide and India’s broader communal polarization. Jammu’s Hindu-majority demography increasingly aligns with national majoritarian politics, while Kashmir’s Muslim-majority population feels politically marginalised.
This divergence manifests in multiple ways:
- Voting patterns
- Political rhetoric
- Public protests
- Competing narratives of victimhood
Rather than softening identities, the post-2019 political environment has hardened them. The result is a symbolic hyphen—Jammu–Kashmir—that refuses to disappear.
Education as the New Battleground
One of the most striking aspects of the current divide is how educational institutions have become flashpoints for regional and communal resentment.
The Vaishno Devi Medical College Controversy
Protests erupted in Jammu over admissions at Vaishno Devi Medical College, with allegations that a disproportionate number of MBBS seats were secured by students from the Kashmir Valley, most of them Muslim.
For many in Jammu, the issue was framed as:
- Loss of regional entitlement
- Demographic imbalance
- Institutional bias
For Kashmiris, the protests appeared as:
- Communal targeting
- Penalisation of merit
- An assertion of majoritarian privilege
What should have been a technical debate about admission policy quickly transformed into a communal narrative.
The National Law University Debate: Parity or Preference?
The proposed National Law University (NLU) became another symbol of division. While Jammu already hosts premier institutions such as IIT and IIM, Kashmir has long demanded parity in higher education infrastructure.
Kashmir-based voices argue:
- Institutional concentration in Jammu reinforces imbalance
- Development promises remain uneven
- Educational marginalisation mirrors political marginalisation
Jammu-based voices counter:
- Institutions should not be regionally compartmentalised
- Merit and logistics should determine location
Once again, what might have been a planning discussion turned into a proxy battle over identity and entitlement.
Comparative Snapshot: Jammu vs Kashmir
| Aspect | Jammu | Kashmir |
|---|---|---|
| Demography | Predominantly Hindu | Predominantly Muslim |
| Political leaning | Strong BJP support | Regional parties, autonomy-oriented |
| Post-370 sentiment | Feels integrated | Feels marginalised |
| Institutional presence | IIT, IIM, major colleges | Demands parity |
| Protest narrative | Regional discrimination | Political alienation |
The Trust Deficit: Institutions as Symbols, Not Solutions
A central argument of the Division Bell editorial is the erosion of institutional trust. Universities, colleges, and public bodies are no longer viewed as neutral spaces. They are seen as instruments of political assertion.
When institutions become symbols of dominance rather than common good:
- Dialogue collapses
- Compromise becomes betrayal
- Policy becomes identity politics
This is particularly dangerous in a region where trust in governance is already fragile.
National Integration or National Reflection?
The Jammu–Kashmir divide is not an isolated phenomenon. It mirrors India’s wider struggle with communal polarization, where administrative unity coexists with social fragmentation.
The editorial suggests that Jammu and Kashmir, far from being an exception, has become a microcosm of India’s fractured unity—a place where integration is asserted from above but contested on the ground.
Risks of a Widening Divide
1. Permanent Alienation
If regional grievances harden into communal identities, reconciliation becomes exponentially harder.
2. Governance Paralysis
Every policy decision risks being interpreted through a regional lens, slowing reform.
3. Normalisation of Polarisation
What begins as protest over seats or campuses can evolve into entrenched social hostility.
What Integration Actually Requires
True integration is not achieved by constitutional decrees alone. It requires:
- Equitable development
- Transparent decision-making
- Inclusive narratives
- Sensitivity to regional history
Without these, integration risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.
Conclusion: The Bell Is Still Ringing
The Division Bell editorial is ultimately a warning—not against integration, but against assuming it is complete. Jammu and Kashmir may now exist as one Union Territory on paper, but the lived reality tells a different story.
The divide between Hindu-majority Jammu and Muslim-majority Kashmir has not dissolved. It has evolved, shifting from street politics to seminar halls, admission lists, and institutional maps.
If India’s promise of unity in diversity is to mean anything in Jammu and Kashmir, it must move beyond administrative unification and confront the harder task of social reconciliation. Until then, the bell that rings will continue to signal division—not decision.
