Omar Abdullah Accuses Raj Bhawan of 'Unilateral' Demolition Drives, Says Elected Govt Was Bypassed

Omar Abdullah vs Raj Bhawan: Inside the Bulldozer Showdown Reshaping Governance in Jammu & Kashmir

By: Javid Amin | 28 November 2025

A New Flashpoint in Kashmir’s Power Corridors

A fresh political storm is sweeping across Jammu & Kashmir. At the center of this upheaval stands an explosive allegation made by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah: that Raj Bhawan has been orchestrating demolition drives across J&K without the consent or knowledge of the elected government.

In a region already sensitive to questions of authority, representation, and federal balance, Omar Abdullah’s charge is not a routine political complaint—it strikes at the heart of how governance is structured in a Union Territory with a newly restored political framework.

The alleged practice of deploying bulldozers through the Lieutenant Governor’s office, bypassing ministers, revenue officials, and district administrations loyal to the elected government, has triggered a confrontation that is unprecedented in post-Article 370 J&K.

This article examines the issue from every angle:

✔ The political significance
✔ Constitutional boundaries
✔ Historical background
✔ Governance practices
✔ Selective demolition allegations
✔ Power struggle between LG and CM
✔ Public perception
✔ Implications for democracy in J&K
✔ Possible outcomes

Let us begin with what exactly Omar Abdullah alleged—and why it matters.

What Omar Abdullah Accused — “Bulldozers Without Government Approval”

In a hard-hitting statement, Omar Abdullah claimed:

Demolition drives were launched unilaterally under Raj Bhawan’s directives.
Ministers had no knowledge of the operations.
Revenue officers reported confusion because “instructions were coming from two power centers.”
The drives were selective, disproportionately targeting particular communities and individuals.
The intent, he said, was to defame the elected government and portray it as ineffective.

His words were sharp and unambiguous:

“How can bulldozers move without the orders of the elected government? Who is running J&K—the people’s representatives or the Raj Bhawan?”

This statement instantly ignited a political firestorm.

Why the Timing Matters — Post-Article 370 Governance Dynamics

Since the revocation of Article 370 in 2019, J&K has gone through:

2.5 years of President’s Rule
Direct administration by the LG
Bureaucrat-driven governance
Delayed elections
Reduced autonomy and heightened central oversight

In late 2024, after assembly elections, the Omar Abdullah-led coalition restored democratic governance. But the administrative machinery—police, revenue officers, district collectors—had been operating under LG authority for years.

The demolition controversy exposes this structural imbalance:

The bureaucracy still feels answerable to the LG.
The LG’s office continues to act with executive confidence.
The elected government is struggling to assert authority.

This makes Omar’s allegation more than a political complaint—it’s a governance crisis.

What Exactly Happened During the Demolitions?

Multiple demolition incidents occurred in:

Jammu district
Samba
Kathua
Udhampur
Srinagar’s outskirts

Targets included:

Houses alleged to be “encroachments”
Commercial shops
Sheds and small structures
The home of a journalist, raising media freedom concerns

Common features reported:

Bulldozers arrived early morning.
Police cordoned off the area.
No minister was informed.
District officers privately said “orders came from above.”
Some notices were issued, many were not.

The lack of procedural transparency triggered widespread suspicion.

The Constitutional Question — Who Controls What in J&K?

Jammu & Kashmir is in a unique constitutional position:

It has a Lieutenant Governor (LG) like any Union Territory.
But it also has a full-fledged elected government like a state.

This hybrid structure creates ambiguity in:

Executive authority
Police control
Land and revenue matters
Demolition/eviction powers

According to constitutional experts, demolition drives fall under:

✔ State subject — land & revenue
✔ Controlled by district magistrates
✔ Who report to the elected government, not the LG

Thus, if demolitions happened without ministerial approval, it raises questions of:

Overreach
Misuse of UT laws
Violating democratic oversight

Omar Abdullah framed it sharply:

“If the LG wants to run J&K alone, why hold elections at all?”

The Political Chessboard — Why Omar Is Calling It a Conspiracy

Omar Abdullah argues the demolitions were designed to:

Make his government look anti-public
Create an impression of inefficiency
Suggest that “only the LG can deliver tough decisions”
Undermine the credibility of the new government

For the National Conference, the narrative is strategic:

BJP and Raj Bhawan want to retain control
Bureaucracy remains loyal to LG
The CM’s authority is weakened by parallel decision-making

Political analysts agree this conflict was inevitable, given:

Deep distrust between NC and BJP
Competing power centers
Long history of federal friction in J&K

Selective Demolitions — The Accusation That Ignited Public Anger

Several demolitions reportedly targeted:

Minority-community clusters
Critics of the administration
A journalist’s home
Families involved in past protests

This raised two questions:

Were demolitions neutral?
Or were they politically directed?

Civil society groups argue:

Notice procedures were bypassed
Legal remedies were blocked
No uniform policy existed
Rich encroachers were ignored, poor were targeted

Human rights groups have demanded:

Judicial oversight
Suspension of officers responsible
Inquiry into selective targeting

Raj Bhawan’s Possible Response — What the LG’s Office May Argue

Though Raj Bhawan hasn’t formally responded, its likely defense would be:

Drives were part of anti-encroachment policy
Demolitions targeted illegal structures
Bureaucracy acted under existing UT laws
No political motive involved

However, the silence from Raj Bhawan has only intensified suspicion.

Bureaucracy in Crossfire — A State Caught Between Two Power Centers

Since 2019, civil servants in J&K have functioned under:

Lieutenant Governor
Ministry of Home Affairs
Central agencies

After elections, the elected government expects loyalty.

But in reality:

DCs still look to LG for career security
Police receive mixed signals
Revenue officials fear contradicting LG’s authority

This dual power structure is unsustainable.

Omar Abdullah’s accusations highlight this administrative confusion.

Civil Liberties & Media Freedom — Why the Demolition of a Journalist’s House Matters

One of the biggest triggers of public debate was:

The demolition of a journalist’s residence in Jammu.

Concerns include:

Retaliation for reporting
Precedent for suppressing dissent
Shrinking media space in the region

International human rights organizations have expressed concern that:

Bulldozer politics is becoming normalised
J&K’s democratic institutions are being weakened

Historical Parallels — Has This Happened Before in J&K?

J&K has seen repeated power tussles between:

CM vs Governor
State govt vs Centre
Elected institutions vs bureaucracy

Examples include:

1984 dismissal of Farooq Abdullah
1990 Governor’s Rule
2008 Amarnath land row
2016 Governor-driven decisions during political transitions

But bulldozer governance without elected oversight is unprecedented.

Public Perception — Who Does the People Blame?

In Kashmir Valley:

Many distrust any Raj Bhawan-driven action
Omar’s stance seen as defending democratic rights
Bulldozers evoke memories of heavy-handed governance

In Jammu:

Mixed reaction
Some support clearing “illegal structures”
Others see demolitions as politically targeted
Journalistic community strongly opposed

The overall sentiment:
People want transparent, lawful governance, not power games.

The Larger Political Stakes — 2026 & Beyond

The demolition controversy is part of a larger battle:

NC wants full administrative control restored
BJP wants to retain influence through Raj Bhawan
Bureaucracy is stuck between both

This issue will influence:

Voter sentiment
Valley–Jammu political divides
Centre–state relations
Future legislative autonomy debates

Legal Ramifications — Could This Go to Court?

It is possible.

The elected government may:

Seek judicial clarification
Demand an inquiry
Move a resolution in Assembly
File petitions challenging unilateral demolitions

Legal experts say:

LG cannot override elected government in land matters
Demolitions must follow due process
Parallel governance is unconstitutional

What Happens Next — Three Possible Scenarios

1. Constitutional Showdown

The standoff escalates into a legal and political battle between:

CM’s office
Raj Bhawan
Centre

2. Negotiated Settlement

Centre intervenes to:

Define clear boundaries
Restore ministerial authority
Prevent bureaucratic confusion

3. Continued Dual Governance (Most Dangerous)

If unresolved, J&K may experience:

Policy paralysis
Conflicting orders
Erosion of public trust
Political instability

Bottom-Line: Why This Bulldozer Controversy Matters More Than Any Other

This controversy is not merely about demolitions.

It is about:

Who governs Jammu & Kashmir
The role of the Lieutenant Governor
The authority of the elected government
The balance of federal power
The rights of citizens against administrative excess
The fragility of democracy in a post-370 era

Omar Abdullah’s charge that Raj Bhawan is bypassing democratic authority has opened a new chapter in J&K’s political evolution—one that will determine the shape of governance for years ahead.

The bulldozers may have targeted buildings, but the deeper conflict they unearthed strikes at the foundations of constitutional governance.