Who Betrayed Kashmir? BJP vs NC Fight Over Article 370, Autonomy and Decades of Broken Promises
By: Javid Amin | 16 Aug 2026
Srinagar: Who betrayed Kashmir? It sounds like a simple political question. In Jammu and Kashmir, however, there is no simple answer.
For one side, the answer lies in New Delhi’s post-2019 constitutional changes, particularly the abrogation of Article 370 and the conversion of the erstwhile state into two Union Territories.
For the other, the blame lies much deeper in Kashmir’s political history—with the National Conference’s decades of rule, the Abdullah family’s political dominance, broken promises, shifting positions and alleged failures of governance.
And somewhere between these competing narratives sits the ordinary Kashmiri, who has lived through wars, militancy, political upheaval, elections, crackdowns, constitutional changes and promises of a better future.
That is why the phrase “Who betrayed Kashmir?” has political power far beyond a television debate or interview.
It forces two of J&K’s most powerful political narratives to confront the same uncomfortable question:
Who failed the people of Jammu and Kashmir—and when?
The BJP’s Case: “The Abdullahs Created the Trust Deficit”
The BJP’s current political strategy in J&K increasingly focuses on the history of the National Conference and the Abdullah family.
In May 2026, BJP J&K spokesperson Danish Bhat argued that the mistrust between Jammu and Kashmir and New Delhi was not simply created by the Centre but was cultivated by the Abdullah family for political advantage. He accused the NC of ideological reversals and cited its changing positions on the Plebiscite Front and relations with Delhi.
This is a familiar BJP argument.
According to this narrative, the National Conference has repeatedly presented itself as the defender of Kashmiri interests while remaining a dominant political force for much of J&K’s post-independence history.
The BJP therefore asks a counter-question:
If the NC had governed Kashmir for decades, why does the region still suffer from political alienation, unemployment, corruption allegations and institutional distrust?
That argument becomes particularly potent during elections.
The BJP’s narrative is essentially that the traditional political establishment had failed Kashmir—and that the 2019 constitutional changes were intended to break that cycle.
The NC’s Counterattack: “2019 Was the Betrayal”
The National Conference tells the story very differently.
For the NC, the fundamental rupture came on August 5, 2019, when the Union government effectively ended Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status and Parliament passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act.
The party argues that Article 370 was not merely a legal provision.
It was part of the constitutional relationship through which J&K had been integrated into India.
The NC therefore portrays the 2019 decision as a breach of political trust.
That argument remains central to the party’s identity.
In April 2026, NC MP Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi went further, accusing his own party of failing to adequately pursue its promise to fight for restoration of Article 370 and statehood. He described restoration of Article 370 as the party’s primary promise to voters and openly used the language of “betrayal” in criticising the NC leadership.
That internal criticism is significant.
It shows that the question of betrayal is no longer simply NC versus BJP.
It is also becoming:
NC versus its own expectations.
1953: Where the “Betrayal” Narrative Really Begins
To understand why the word betrayal carries such emotional weight in Kashmir, it is necessary to go much further back than 2019.
One of the most important turning points was August 9, 1953, when Sheikh Abdullah was dismissed as Jammu and Kashmir’s Prime Minister and subsequently arrested.
The episode remains one of the most contested moments in the constitutional history of J&K.
Historical scholarship documents Sheikh Abdullah’s dismissal and arrest, while the circumstances surrounding his political estrangement from New Delhi remain a major subject of debate.
For many supporters of the National Conference, 1953 represents the beginning of a long erosion of Kashmir’s promised autonomy.
The argument is that the political relationship between J&K and India gradually changed through constitutional and political interventions that reduced the autonomy originally associated with the accession framework.
For critics of the NC, however, the same history is interpreted differently.
They point to Sheikh Abdullah’s own political evolution, including his later return to power through the 1975 Indira-Abdullah Accord, as evidence of a leadership that repeatedly adjusted its position according to political circumstances.
Thus, even 1953 becomes part of two competing histories.
The NC’s Long Political Journey: From Accession to Autonomy
The National Conference’s political history is anything but linear.
Under Sheikh Abdullah, the party became associated with Kashmiri political aspirations and land reforms while simultaneously supporting accession to India.
After Sheikh Abdullah’s dismissal, his supporters moved toward the Plebiscite Front.
Later, Sheikh Abdullah returned to mainstream politics and signed the 1975 Indira-Abdullah Accord.
That accord reaffirmed Jammu and Kashmir’s place within the Indian Union while allowing Sheikh Abdullah to return to power.
For critics, this political evolution raises an uncomfortable question:
Did the NC compromise with New Delhi whenever political circumstances demanded it?
For NC supporters, the answer is different.
They argue that the party repeatedly worked within democratic politics to protect whatever constitutional space remained available to J&K.
The disagreement illustrates why Kashmir’s political history cannot easily be divided into heroes and villains.
BJP’s 2019 Argument: Integration, Not Betrayal
The BJP’s defence of August 5, 2019 rests on a fundamentally different understanding of Kashmir’s constitutional history.
From the BJP’s perspective, Article 370 represented an exceptional arrangement that had contributed to political separation rather than national integration.
The party argued that removing the provision would:
- ensure uniform application of Indian laws;
- strengthen constitutional integration;
- improve development;
- eliminate discriminatory provisions;
- reduce separatist politics; and
- create greater opportunities for investment and employment.
Supporters therefore see 2019 as a historic correction rather than a betrayal.
The BJP’s political argument is straightforward:
If Jammu and Kashmir had acceded to India, why should its citizens continue to have a separate constitutional framework?
That question has considerable resonance outside the Valley and among sections of Jammu’s electorate.
The NC’s 2019 Argument: Integration Without Trust Is Not Enough
The National Conference does not accept that interpretation.
Its argument is that accession and autonomy were not mutually exclusive.
The party maintains that Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional relationship with India evolved around a distinct framework and that removing Article 370 without the consent of the people fundamentally changed that relationship.
Omar Abdullah has repeatedly described the 2019 decision as a betrayal of trust.
His current political messaging continues to reflect that position.
On Independence Day 2026, Omar argued that looking across the LoC vindicated Sheikh Abdullah’s decision in 1947 to resist the tribal invasion and align with India. In another Independence Day remark, he went so far as to suggest that had Article 370 remained, people in Pakistan-administered Kashmir might have been protesting to join J&K.
The BJP immediately attacked those remarks as irresponsible and unfortunate.
The exchange demonstrates how deeply 1947 and 2019 remain connected in Kashmir’s political imagination.
The Abdullah Family’s Political Problem
The NC has a powerful historical legacy.
But legacy can also become a political liability.
The Abdullah family has dominated mainstream Kashmiri politics for generations.
Sheikh Abdullah.
Farooq Abdullah.
Omar Abdullah.
For supporters, that represents continuity.
For opponents, it represents dynastic politics.
The BJP and other regional rivals frequently argue that the Abdullah family has treated Kashmir’s political aspirations as a source of electoral power while failing to deliver adequate governance.
The BJP’s 2026 criticism has explicitly focused on this accusation, alleging that the Abdullah family’s political narrative helped maintain distance between Kashmir and Delhi while shielding the party from accountability.
The NC rejects such portrayals and continues to present itself as the principal political inheritor of Sheikh Abdullah’s legacy.
That battle over legacy is now becoming as important as the battle over policy.
The NC Has Its Own “Betrayal” Problem
Perhaps the biggest challenge for the National Conference in 2026 is that the word betrayal is increasingly being used against the party from within.
Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi’s criticism is particularly significant because he is not an external political opponent.
He is an NC MP.
His complaint is that the party promised voters that it would continue the political fight for restoration of Article 370 but has not pursued that promise with sufficient force.
The criticism comes amid broader pressure on Omar Abdullah’s government.
The Indian Express reported in July that the NC was facing growing pressure in the Kashmir Valley over its handling of its post-2024 electoral mandate and its approach to restoration of statehood. The party had campaigned on restoration of Article 370, Article 35A and statehood, but its government has faced criticism over the pace and direction of that political struggle.
This creates a difficult political equation for Omar Abdullah.
If he pushes too hard on Article 370
He risks confrontation with the Centre and may struggle to convert the demand into a practical constitutional outcome.
If he focuses primarily on statehood
His critics can accuse him of abandoning the larger promises made during the election campaign.
If he adopts a conciliatory approach
Hardliners within the Valley can portray him as compromising.
That is the political trap surrounding the NC today.
The BJP Has Its Own Trust Problem
But the BJP cannot escape the “betrayal” question either.
The party’s strongest argument is that the 2019 decision was necessary to integrate J&K more fully with India.
Yet political integration does not automatically resolve every problem.
The region continues to face concerns relating to:
- employment;
- political representation;
- statehood;
- security;
- investment;
- rehabilitation;
- governance;
- civil liberties; and
- the relationship between the elected government and the Union-appointed Lieutenant Governor.
The BJP can point to post-2019 changes and argue that the constitutional structure has been permanently transformed.
Its critics respond:
Has constitutional integration produced political trust?
That is a much harder question.
What About Ordinary Kashmiris?
This is where political narratives often become disconnected from everyday life.
For many ordinary people, the debate is not limited to Article 370.
It is about whether their children can find jobs.
Whether government recruitment is fair.
Whether businesses can survive political uncertainty.
Whether young people can live without fear.
Whether families affected by conflict can rebuild their lives.
Whether elected representatives have meaningful authority.
And whether promises made during elections are actually implemented.
For some Kashmiris, Article 370 remains central to identity and dignity.
For others, economic opportunity and stability are more immediate concerns.
For still others, both issues matter.
That diversity makes it dangerous for any political party to claim that it alone speaks for “Kashmir.”
The BJP–NC Fight Is Also a Fight Over Memory
Politics in Kashmir is unusually dependent on historical memory.
Every generation inherits a different version of the past.
For the BJP, the key dates include:
1947 — Accession to India
1990s — Militancy and displacement
2019 — Abrogation of Article 370
For the NC, the political timeline looks different:
1947 — Sheikh Abdullah’s role in resisting tribal invasion
1953 — Sheikh Abdullah’s dismissal and arrest
1975 — Indira-Abdullah Accord
2019 — Abrogation of Article 370
These are not merely historical milestones.
They are political arguments.
Each party chooses particular events to explain why Kashmir reached its present condition.
And Then There Are the Other Parties
Reducing Kashmir politics to BJP versus NC would itself be misleading.
The PDP, Apni Party, Peoples Conference and emerging independent voices all compete for political space.
The PDP, for example, has attempted to reclaim its own Article 370 narrative after its earlier alliance with the BJP.
The NC has attacked the PDP, Peoples Conference and Apni Party for allegedly helping facilitate the BJP’s political agenda in J&K. In July 2026, NC general secretary Ali Mohammad Sagar accused these parties of acting as political surrogates for the BJP and blamed them for abandoning the fight over Article 370.
The BJP, naturally, rejects the NC’s version.
This means Kashmir’s “betrayal politics” is no longer a two-party story.
It is a competition among several parties over who can claim the mantle of authentic Kashmiri representation.
The Statehood Question Could Become the Next Battleground
If Article 370 remains largely a settled legal question after the Supreme Court’s 2023 verdict, statehood has become the more immediately actionable political demand.
The Supreme Court upheld the Union government’s 2019 decision while directing that statehood be restored at the earliest.
The NC government has made restoration of statehood a major political objective.
But even that campaign has produced disappointment.
The NC’s July 2026 protest in New Delhi seeking restoration of statehood struggled to generate the political momentum the party had hoped for, according to an Indian Express analysis.
That creates another opening for the opposition.
If statehood is delayed, the NC can blame the Centre.
If the party fails to build sufficient political pressure, its critics can blame the NC.
Either way, the word betrayal remains available to whoever wants to use it.
Why the Question Is So Powerful
“Who betrayed Kashmir?” works because both sides have a credible political counterargument.
The BJP can ask:
If the NC governed J&K for decades, why did alienation persist?
Why did corruption allegations persist?
Why did militancy take root?
Why did the Abdullah family repeatedly dominate politics?
Why should Article 370 have remained indefinitely?
The NC can respond:
If the BJP restored normalcy through constitutional integration, why has statehood not returned?
Why was Article 370 removed without the elected state government’s consent?
Why does the elected government continue to complain about limits on its authority?
Why should a political relationship built over decades be fundamentally altered without popular participation?
Neither side has an easy answer to all of these questions.
Betrayal Is Not a Legal Category—It Is a Political Emotion
This distinction is crucial.
There is no single legal definition of “betrayal of Kashmir.”
It is a political judgment.
One person may consider the 2019 constitutional changes a betrayal.
Another may consider decades of dynastic rule the real betrayal.
Another may point to the 1953 dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah.
Someone else may point to the failures of successive governments to provide security, employment and good governance.
And many people may simply reject the premise that one party alone is responsible.
That is why the debate is so difficult to settle.
The Real Political Risk for BJP and NC
The danger for both parties is that voters may increasingly reject the idea that either side deserves exclusive ownership of Kashmir’s future.
The BJP’s post-2019 narrative is built around integration and development.
The NC’s narrative is built around identity, constitutional rights and political dignity.
But voters ultimately judge governments through outcomes.
A young graduate does not live inside an Article 370 argument.
He or she lives with a job application.
A small trader does not experience federalism as a constitutional theory.
He experiences it through taxes, regulations and business conditions.
A family does not experience statehood as an abstract political demand.
It experiences governance through schools, hospitals, electricity, roads and administration.
That is where political credibility is ultimately tested.
So, Who Betrayed Kashmir?
There is no objective one-line answer.
The BJP’s critics argue that August 5, 2019 represented the betrayal of Kashmir’s constitutional and political trust.
The BJP argues that the real betrayal occurred over decades under regional parties that failed to deliver good governance and used Kashmir’s special status as a political shield.
Critics of the National Conference point to dynastic politics, political compromises and unfulfilled promises.
Critics of the BJP point to the removal of Article 370, the loss of statehood and what they describe as excessive centralisation.
And many ordinary Kashmiris may have a different answer altogether:
They may feel betrayed by the entire political class.
That may ultimately be the most important message hidden inside the provocative question.
Because the Kashmir debate is no longer simply about who ruled.
It is about who can still be trusted.
The Bottom Line
The BJP and National Conference are fighting over more than votes.
They are fighting over the meaning of Kashmir’s political history.
The BJP wants 2019 remembered as the moment when an old constitutional anomaly was finally removed.
The NC wants 2019 remembered as the moment when a historic political trust was broken.
The NC invokes Sheikh Abdullah and 1947 to defend its pro-India legacy.
The BJP invokes decades of NC rule to challenge the Abdullah family’s claim to represent Kashmir’s aspirations.
Meanwhile, internal NC criticism shows that even within the party, questions are being raised about whether its current leadership is living up to promises made to voters.
That is why “Who betrayed Kashmir?” is more than a provocative interview question.
It is becoming a defining political contest over memory, accountability, autonomy, integration and trust.
And perhaps the most uncomfortable answer is this:
Kashmiris may not be asking which party betrayed them first. They may be asking which party, after decades of promises and counter-promises, can finally convince them that it will not betray them again.
