A Session That Captured a Region’s Fault Lines
By: Javid Amin | 02 February 2026
On February 3, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly turned into a political and social spectacle — not just another day in the parliamentary calendar, but a moment that reflected deep-seated regional anxieties, competing narratives of development, and broader questions about safety and dignity for communities beyond the Union Territory’s borders.
The sparks ignited when BJP legislators entered the Assembly with placards forcibly demanding a National Law University (NLU) in Jammu — triggering objections from opposition MLAs who accused the party of violating Assembly decorum. At the same time, voices from the opposition benches brought up recent harassment and assaults on Kashmiris — particularly shawl sellers and traders in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh — connecting local biennial politics with national concerns about identity and rights.
This mega-feature explores the origins of that confrontation, the narratives deployed by both sides, the real-world context of violence and intimidation against Kashmiris in other states, and the larger implications for regional politics, national discourse, and future policymaking.
The National Law University (NLU) Demand – Origins and Political Resonance
What BJP MLAs Were Protesting In the Assembly
The protest began as soon as the Assembly convened on February 3. A group of BJP MLAs entered with placards, disrupting the formal start of business. The placards demanded the establishment of a National Law University (NLU) in the Jammu region — a call that has been gaining steam among students, civil society groups, and regional advocates for several weeks.
This show of dissent was led — both on the streets in Jammu and later inside the Assembly — by Sunil Sharma, Leader of Opposition (BJP), along with party legislators including R S Pathania, Shagun Parihar, and Devyani Rana, all aligning themselves with an ongoing agitation by Jammu University students.
These students have been on a 25-day protest, frequently blocking traffic, staging sit-ins and demanding that the government establish a full-fledged NLU in Jammu — citing access issues and regional imbalance as key reasons.
Why Jammu Demands Its Own NLU
The BJP and protesters argue that Jammu, despite being an integral part of the Union Territory, suffers from a chronic lack of premier educational institutions compared to Kashmir. With only one NLU currently planned in Budgam (Kashmir), students and regional leaders say that young aspirants from Jammu have to travel far and face additional hurdles — from climate and logistics to safety concerns — to pursue quality legal education.
The party has framed this demand as a matter of equity and regional fairness, insisting that Jammu needs an NLU to:
-
Provide local access to premier legal education
-
Reduce student outmigration to other states
-
Balance perceived long-standing regional disparities
These arguments mirror those made in civil society campaigns and opinion pieces, which have characterized the demand as a pursuit of “equitable development” rather than anti-Kashmir sentiment.
BJP’s Political Framing: Accessibility vs Political Narrative
Sunil Sharma publicly articulated that the demand was “fully justified,” asserting that students in Jammu face “genuine difficulties and cannot be expected to pursue legal education in Kashmir.” He promised that the BJP would continue fighting for this before the administrative leadership.
BJP leaders also pledged central government support for funding the institution, making this not just a symbolic protest but a coordinated political push with administrative aims.
Assembly Protocol, Decorum, and the Placard Controversy
Conflict Over Procedure: Placards in the House
Opposition MLAs were swift to object to the mode of protest inside the Assembly. Congress MLA Nizamuddin Bhat called out the BJP for carrying placards, calling such a display “a violation of the decorum of the House,” arguing that the Assembly should be a space for structured debate and reasoned argument — not street-style protest acts.
The objection underscored a larger debate about legislative norms — how far can legislators push protest tactics before they undermine the constitutional tone of parliamentary proceedings? The BJP’s counter-argument was that their actions brought visibility to a legitimate regional plea that had, in their view, been ignored through conventional channels.
Debate Dynamics: A Question of Style and Substance
The BJP side maintained that the protest was a peaceful and symbolic action signifying solidarity with Jammu students, asserting that legislative debates alone had failed to move government action. Meanwhile, opposition leaders insisted that even legitimate issues should be raised through the regular question hour and debate mechanisms.
This clash of style versus substance mirrored wider socio-political fault lines in the Union Territory — between assertive political agitation and traditional institutional process.
The Counter‐Narrative — Harassment of Kashmiris
While the NLU issue dominated one flank of the Assembly debate, another narrative equally charged with political significance was introduced by opposition members — the harassment and attacks on Kashmiris outside Jammu & Kashmir.
What Incidents Were Raised
Opposition MLAs, including leaders from National Conference and PDP, highlighted a spate of violent incidents against Kashmiri shawl sellers and traders in states like Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh:
Uttarakhand Attack
In late January 2026, two young Kashmiri brothers selling shawls in the Vikas Nagar area near Dehradun (Uttarakhand) were reportedly assaulted by a group of locals, with one of them sustaining serious head and arm injuries after being hit with iron rods.
Himachal Pradesh Assault
Days later, in Kangra district, Himachal Pradesh, another Kashmiri shawl seller — Mohammad Ramzan — was harassed, forced to prove his identity, threatened with expulsion from the state, and later allegedly assaulted by a local person identified as Surjeet Rajput Guleria, amid humiliating provocations.
The Jammu & Kashmir Students Association (JKSA) described this as the fourth such incident in Himachal in recent months, pointing to a pattern of intimidation and threats towards Kashmiri traders, often met with limited formal action by local authorities.
Responses from Kashmir Political Leaders
The incidents drew strong condemnation from regional leaders, including:
-
Omar Abdullah (Chief Minister) — took up the Uttarakhand incident with the state’s chief minister and demanded strict action and FIR enforcement.
-
Mehbooba Mufti (PDP President) — criticized the lack of adequate response when peaceful protests were stopped by police following such incidents.
-
Sheikh Khursheed Ahmad (MLA, AIP) — questioned the silence of the Lt Governor on attacks outside the UT.
-
All India Muslim Jamaat leadership — labelled the incidents signs of growing intolerance and administrative failure in host states.
These attacks and their political amplification undercut the BJP’s regional institutional plea by elevating safety, citizenship rights, and minority protection as national and human rights concerns.
The Politics of Regional Imbalance
Historical Context of Jammu–Kashmir Development Disputes
Claims of injustice or imbalance between Jammu and Kashmir are not new. Leaders and analysts have long pointed to investment disparities in infrastructure, employment opportunities, and elite institutions since before the revocation of Article 370 in 2019 — an event that itself reshaped regional political terrain.
Protesters and advocates for the NLU argue that placing major academic institutions predominantly in Kashmir reinforces perceptions of political favoritism and historical marginalization of the Jammu region.
Conversely, critics suggest that emphasizing regional competition over shared development objectives risks deepening communal and political divisions.
Broader Political Voices and National Implications
Statehood Debate Amid NLU Demands
While the NLU controversy drew attention, other political voices redirected focus to a bigger constitutional question — the restoration of statehood to Jammu & Kashmir.
A statement from the National Conference (NC) urged the BJP to look beyond institutional demands, insisting that the primary political issue should be reinstating J&K’s full statehood — a demand rooted in constitutional autonomy and political identity after the 2019 change in status.
This remark underscored how local institutional protests intersect with broader governance and federal questions — pushing regional politics into conversations about administrative rights and national constitutional frameworks.
Social Impact – Traders, Students, and Everyday Lives
Kashmiri Shawl Sellers: More Than Headlines
The focus on harassment incidents goes beyond political posturing. Kashmir’s shawl sellers undertake seasonal migration to hill states like Himachal and Uttarakhand to earn livelihoods during colder months — a practice with decades of economic importance.
The alleged attacks and threats have triggered economic anxiety, prompting some workers to consider pulling back from seasonal markets; trade associations have reported fear and reluctance among vendors in continuing their traditional occupation under hostile conditions.
For Kashmiri students studying in other Indian states, the fear of intimidation has also resonated with community groups and political leaders raising concerns about their welfare and constitutional protections.
What This Means for the Future
A Landscape of Competing Narratives
The Assembly episode is symbolic of how regional politics in J&K is increasingly shaped by:
-
Competing visions of development (institutional distribution vs broader rights)
-
Identity, citizenship, and safety concerns
-
**Political signalling ahead of future electoral cycles
Policy Implications and Governance Challenges
The debate highlights distinct policy issues:
-
Regional Institutional Equity: The demand for an NLU reflects real aspirations for equitable access to elite education.
-
Law and Order Responsibilities: The harassment cases thrust the obligations of host state governments and central law enforcement into scrutiny.
-
Political Polarization: Framing protests inside the Assembly may have deepened political polarities between parties.
-
Inter-state Relations: As state and UT leadership engage with cases beyond their jurisdiction, questions of federal cooperation and law enforcement coordination are now salient.
Conclusion: Beyond Placards and Protests
The February 2026 Jammu & Kashmir Assembly session will not be remembered merely for protesters with placards. It has become a lens through which larger regional aspirations, national debates on identity and safety, and constitutional governance structures are being scrutinized and contested.
On one side, the drive for an NLU in Jammu highlights persistent demands for meaningful regional development and access to opportunities. On the other, the spotlight on harassment and violence against Kashmiris in other states draws urgent attention to rights, protections, and the fragility of social harmony in a diverse nation.
At its core, the Assembly confrontation reflected deeper questions — about who gets to define fairness, how regions perceive their share of national promise, and how a plural society protects its vulnerable members.
For policymakers and citizens alike, the challenge remains to move beyond symbolic gestures toward substantive solutions that uphold constitutional values, protect citizens everywhere, and ensure equitable growth and security for all communities.
