Aga Ruhullah vs NC Leadership: Is Article 370 Becoming the Fault Line Inside Kashmir’s Oldest Political Party?
By: Javid Amin | 19 Aug 2026
Srinagar: The National Conference’s internal debate over Jammu and Kashmir’s political future has moved well beyond a disagreement over tactics.
At its heart is a much larger question: Should the NC continue to make restoration of Article 370 and the constitutional protections that existed before August 5, 2019 its central political objective—or should it prioritise the more immediately achievable demand for restoration of statehood while focusing on governance and development?
Srinagar Lok Sabha MP Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi has chosen the first path.
He has repeatedly accused his own party of moving Article 370 to the political sidelines and warned that concentrating on statehood risks normalising the constitutional status created after August 5, 2019. In July, he refused to participate in the NC’s Jantar Mantar protest for statehood, arguing that the party had sought votes on a broader mandate.
NC vice-president and Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, however, has defended the party’s statehood-first strategy from a very different political calculation. He has argued that restoring statehood is foundational and that combining the two demands could actually make it harder to achieve either objective.
This is therefore not simply Ruhullah versus Omar Abdullah.
It is a debate over ideology versus pragmatism, political memory versus present-day constraints, and the meaning of the NC’s 2024 electoral mandate.
The Core Dispute: Article 370 or Statehood First?
The disagreement can be reduced to two competing political strategies.
Aga Ruhullah’s argument
Article 370 and the constitutional safeguards associated with it are the people’s mandate. Statehood alone is insufficient.
NC leadership’s argument
Statehood is the immediate and achievable objective. Restoring the political status of J&K must begin with restoring its status as a full-fledged state.
The distinction became especially visible ahead of the NC’s July 20 protest in New Delhi.
Ruhullah declined to participate, saying the party’s responsibility was to fight for Article 370 rather than limit itself to statehood. He accused the shift in emphasis of helping normalise the post-2019 status quo and advancing what he described as the BJP’s narrative.
The disagreement could hardly be clearer.
Ruhullah’s Argument: “The Mandate Was Not for Statehood Alone”
Ruhullah’s criticism rests on his interpretation of the NC’s election campaign.
He argues that the party did not seek votes merely by promising to restore J&K’s statehood.
Instead, he says, the NC campaigned against the post-2019 constitutional changes and promised to safeguard the political and constitutional rights that existed before the abrogation of Article 370.
In July, he drew a direct distinction between the two demands:
“Statehood is the BJP’s agenda. The constitutional guarantees and protections that were available under Article 370 are the agenda of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.”
That position has remained consistent across his public statements in 2026.
For Ruhullah, therefore, statehood is not the destination.
It is, at most, one component of a much larger political struggle.
Why Ruhullah Sees Statehood Alone as a Problem
This is where his criticism becomes more consequential.
The restoration of statehood would reverse one major consequence of the 2019 reorganisation.
But it would not automatically restore the constitutional arrangement that existed before August 5, 2019.
That distinction matters enormously to Ruhullah.
He sees Article 370 not simply as a provision in the Constitution but as part of the political identity and constitutional relationship of Jammu and Kashmir.
His argument is therefore:
If the NC accepts statehood as the primary objective without continuing to demand Article 370, it risks allowing the post-2019 constitutional framework to become politically normal.
That is the basis of his accusation that the party is helping to “normalise” the BJP’s post-August 5 agenda.
It is a political allegation, not an uncontested fact—but it explains the intensity of his opposition.
Omar Abdullah’s Strategy Is Different—and More Tactical
Omar Abdullah has not abandoned the broader political disagreement over Article 370.
But he has made a strategic calculation.
In July, while defending the NC’s Delhi protest, Omar argued that statehood is foundational to any meaningful discussion of restoring J&K’s special status.
His reasoning was blunt: if statehood and Article 370 are presented as one combined demand, the Centre could use the Article 370 demand as a reason to reject statehood as well.
This is the essential difference between Omar and Ruhullah.
Ruhullah asks:
Why should the party reduce its demand when the larger constitutional issue remains unresolved?
Omar asks:
Why risk losing an achievable political objective by tying it to something the present government is unlikely to concede?
Both positions have political logic.
They simply begin from different assumptions.
The Legal Reality Behind the Political Argument
Any serious analysis of this dispute has to acknowledge the legal landscape.
The Union government’s 2019 changes were challenged in the Supreme Court.
In December 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of Article 370 and the constitutional changes associated with it, while directing that statehood for Jammu and Kashmir be restored at the earliest.
That dramatically altered the terrain on which regional parties operate.
The demand for restoration of Article 370 remains a political demand.
The demand for restoration of statehood, by contrast, has a clear institutional and constitutional pathway and was also addressed in the Supreme Court’s judgment.
This is precisely why the NC leadership considers statehood a more practical immediate objective.
Ruhullah’s position is different because he is asking the party not to let legal finality—or political difficulty—determine the limits of its political campaign.
The Delhi Protest Became the Breaking Point
The NC’s proposed Jantar Mantar protest exposed the disagreement publicly.
The party’s campaign centred on restoration of statehood.
Ruhullah refused to participate.
He said he would instead continue speaking to people in Jammu and Kashmir about Article 370 and the constitutional safeguards he believes formed the real electoral mandate.
This was more than an absence from a party programme.
It was a political statement.
A sitting NC MP was effectively saying:
I support the party, but I do not support the way it is currently framing the central political issue.
That is a serious internal contradiction for a ruling party.
“Normalising the BJP’s Agenda”: What Does Ruhullah Mean?
The phrase needs to be understood carefully.
Ruhullah is not saying that NC has formally accepted the BJP’s position on Article 370.
The NC continues to maintain its opposition to the 2019 changes.
His criticism is about political emphasis.
His argument is that when the party:
- organises protests exclusively around statehood;
- focuses heavily on governance and development;
- avoids making Article 370 the centrepiece of public campaigns; and
- operates within the post-2019 institutional framework,
it may unintentionally make that framework appear permanent and legitimate.
This is what he means by normalisation.
It is a critique of political strategy, rather than a claim that the NC has officially changed its position.
That distinction is important.
The NC’s Counterargument: Politics Cannot Run on Symbolism Alone
The leadership’s pragmatic case is equally important.
The NC is now the elected government of Jammu and Kashmir.
That changes the responsibilities of its leaders.
When the party was in opposition, it could make broad constitutional demands without having to simultaneously administer schools, roads, hospitals, recruitment, budgets and public services.
As the government, it must deal with the realities of governance inside the existing constitutional framework.
Omar Abdullah therefore has to balance two roles:
Chief Minister of a Union Territory seeking greater political authority
and
leader of a party that historically opposes the 2019 constitutional changes.
That is a difficult balancing act.
Statehood Is More Than an Administrative Demand for Omar
It would also be unfair to portray Omar’s statehood campaign simply as abandoning Article 370.
Omar has argued that statehood is the foundation for restoring J&K’s political and constitutional space.
In July, he said Article 370 could not meaningfully be pursued without first restoring statehood.
His reasoning is essentially institutional.
A full state government would have greater constitutional and political authority than the present Union Territory administration.
From this perspective, demanding statehood first is not surrender.
It is sequencing.
Ruhullah disagrees with that sequencing because he fears the first demand could eventually replace the second.
And that is where the two political strategies collide.
The Real Difference: What Is Politically Achievable?
The dispute can perhaps be understood through one word:
Pragmatism.
Omar Abdullah appears to be asking what can realistically be extracted from the Centre.
Ruhullah is asking what the party is morally and politically obligated to continue demanding.
Those are not necessarily the same thing.
A political party can simultaneously believe that:
- Article 370 should be restored;
- statehood should be restored immediately;
- governance must continue;
- negotiations with New Delhi are necessary; and
- the constitutional question should remain alive.
The difficulty is deciding which issue receives political priority.
That is what the NC has not yet fully resolved.
Ruhullah Has Become the Party’s Ideological Dissenter
Ruhullah’s position has increasingly made him an internal critic of the very party to which he belongs.
His disagreements with the leadership are not new.
He has previously challenged government policy, including the reservation issue, and has publicly criticised the party’s political direction.
In 2025, he reportedly walked out of an NC working committee meeting after a disagreement with Omar Abdullah.
By July 2026, the relationship had deteriorated further.
Ruhullah said the party “doesn’t need” him anymore after he was not part of a party convention, while simultaneously insisting that he remained committed to issues concerning the people of J&K.
Yet there is an important nuance.
He has not advocated breaking the NC.
When speculation emerged that he might form a new political party, Ruhullah rejected the reports and said he had not formed one. He also opposed attempts at political poaching and said the elected NC government should complete its term.
That suggests his immediate objective is not to destroy the NC.
It is to change its direction.
Ruhullah’s Strength: Ideological Clarity
There is a reason Ruhullah’s message resonates with sections of the Valley.
His position is uncomplicated.
He says:
The party promised Article 370. Continue fighting for Article 370.
There is a certain political clarity in that argument.
It allows him to present himself as someone unwilling to trade a difficult constitutional demand for an easier political concession.
His emphasis on identity, dignity, constitutional safeguards and justice also gives the Article 370 debate an emotional dimension beyond legal terminology.
That can be politically powerful.
But His Strategy Carries Serious Risks
The same uncompromising position also has weaknesses.
1. Limited bargaining power
The BJP-led government at the Centre has shown no indication that it intends to restore Article 370 in the form sought by Ruhullah.
A demand without a realistic negotiating pathway can become symbolic rather than effective.
2. Political isolation
If the NC makes Article 370 its sole central demand, it could find it harder to build alliances around issues on which wider political consensus exists.
3. Governance disconnect
Voters also expect the elected government to address employment, infrastructure, inflation, recruitment and public services.
Constitutional politics cannot completely replace governance.
4. Risk of fragmentation
If Ruhullah’s position gains momentum outside the party structure, the pro-Article 370 vote could become divided among NC, PDP and other regional or independent voices.
That could ultimately weaken the political force he wants to strengthen.
NC Leadership’s Strength: Political Pragmatism
The leadership’s approach has its own advantages.
Statehood is a demand that has broader political acceptability.
It does not require the Centre to reverse the entire post-2019 constitutional framework.
It can therefore serve as a negotiating bridge between J&K’s elected government and New Delhi.
The NC can also tell voters that it is fighting for something tangible rather than simply repeating a constitutional demand that the current political establishment has rejected.
That gives Omar Abdullah a practical political narrative.
But Pragmatism Has Its Own Price
The danger for the NC is credibility.
If a party historically identified with autonomy and Article 370 repeatedly speaks about statehood while rarely making the restoration of Article 370 the centrepiece of its political campaigns, some supporters may conclude that the party has changed.
That is precisely Ruhullah’s warning.
The danger is not necessarily losing the entire electorate.
It is losing the political authenticity that differentiates the NC from other parties.
If voters believe the NC has accepted the post-2019 reality, the party could lose the very constituency that once regarded it as the principal defender of J&K’s political identity.
The 2024 Mandate Is at the Centre of Everything
The most important political question is therefore not whether Ruhullah is more radical than Omar.
It is:
What did the voters actually mandate the NC to do?
Ruhullah interprets the mandate as a demand to fight for constitutional restoration.
The leadership interprets it as a mandate to govern J&K while pursuing restoration of statehood and continuing its broader political opposition to the 2019 changes.
Both interpretations can coexist to a degree.
But they cannot remain completely separate forever.
Eventually, voters will want to know:
What exactly is the NC fighting for—and what is it realistically capable of delivering?
Mehbooba Mufti’s Intervention Makes the NC’s Problem Bigger
The issue becomes even more complicated because the PDP has adopted a position closer to Ruhullah’s than to Omar’s on this particular question.
When Mehbooba Mufti criticised the NC’s statehood-only emphasis, she accused the party of helping normalise the post-2019 constitutional order. The Indian Express reported that she described the statehood demand without special-status restoration as a form of whitewashing the 2019 changes.
This creates an unusual political situation.
The NC’s internal dissenter and its principal regional rival are making broadly similar criticisms of the NC’s statehood-first strategy.
That gives Ruhullah’s argument greater political visibility.
But it also presents a problem for him.
The more his position overlaps with the PDP’s, the easier it becomes for NC opponents to portray the dispute as part of a wider regional competition rather than a purely ideological question.
BJP’s Narrative Gains From the Rift—But Not Automatically
There is an obvious advantage for the BJP.
If the NC itself publicly debates whether it has diluted Article 370, the BJP can argue that even its regional opponents recognise the political reality created after 2019.
But there is another side.
The continuing Article 370 debate also demonstrates that the issue remains politically significant in Kashmir.
Ruhullah’s public campaign, Mehbooba’s statements and Omar’s response all show that the constitutional question has not disappeared from mainstream J&K politics.
So while the BJP may benefit from the NC’s internal divisions, it cannot simply declare the debate over.
The National Dimension: Can Article 370 Become an Opposition Issue Again?
Ruhullah has attempted to take the debate beyond Kashmir.
His strategy has included speaking in Delhi and seeking support from opposition parties and civil society.
The objective is ambitious:
Turn Article 370 from a regional grievance into a broader national debate about federalism, constitutionalism and the rights of states and regions.
That strategy has some political space.
Opposition parties have previously criticised the 2019 changes, although their willingness to make Article 370 a central national campaign issue varies considerably.
The challenge is sustaining that coalition.
For parties outside Kashmir, Article 370 may be a constitutional or federalism issue.
For Kashmir’s regional parties, it is also tied to identity and political history.
Those motivations are not always identical.
The Bigger Battle Is Over the NC’s Political Vocabulary
This is perhaps the most revealing aspect of the Ruhullah–NC dispute.
The disagreement is not simply about what the party wants.
It is about how the party talks about what it wants.
Ruhullah wants the vocabulary of:
Article 370 — constitutional safeguards — identity — dignity — justice — restoration.
The leadership increasingly emphasises:
statehood — governance — development — jobs — administration — political engagement.
Neither vocabulary is inherently incompatible with the other.
But the order matters.
Whichever set of words dominates NC politics will shape how the party is perceived by voters.
A Comparative Look: Ruhullah vs NC Leadership
| Political Question | Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi | NC Leadership |
|---|---|---|
| Primary demand | Restoration of Article 370-era constitutional safeguards | Restoration of statehood as immediate priority |
| View of statehood | Important, but insufficient on its own | Foundational step toward broader political restoration |
| Article 370 | Central political mandate | Continues as a political position but separated from immediate statehood campaign |
| Political approach | Ideological and movement-oriented | Pragmatic and institution-oriented |
| Main constituency | Pro-370 and identity-focused voters | Wider electorate seeking governance plus political restoration |
| Relationship with Centre | Greater political pressure and sustained campaign | Negotiation alongside political pressure |
| Main strength | Clarity and ideological consistency | Practicality and broader negotiating space |
| Main risk | Isolation and limited immediate gains | Accusations of compromise and loss of ideological credibility |
What Happens Next Could Define NC Politics
The Ruhullah dispute is unlikely to disappear simply because the NC completes one protest or issues another statement.
Several developments could shape what comes next.
If the leadership accommodates Ruhullah
The NC could attempt to combine the two demands more explicitly—statehood immediately, Article 370 as a longer-term political objective.
That could reduce internal friction.
If the leadership ignores him
Ruhullah could become an increasingly independent political voice, even while remaining formally associated with the party.
If he resigns
His departure could trigger a much larger debate about whether the NC has abandoned its traditional political identity.
If he launches a new platform later
The consequences could be even more significant, particularly if he attracts younger and pro-370 voters.
For now, however, he has rejected reports that he has already decided to form a new party.
The Most Important Question: Can Pragmatism and Principle Coexist?
It would be too simplistic to declare Ruhullah “right” and Omar “wrong,” or vice versa.
Ruhullah is asking the NC to remain faithful to what he believes was its electoral promise.
Omar is trying to extract a political gain that he believes can actually be achieved.
One is concerned about legitimacy and principle.
The other is concerned about strategy and outcomes.
Democratic politics often requires both.
The real test for the NC is whether it can convince voters that these two approaches are complementary rather than contradictory.
Conclusion: Ruhullah Is Challenging More Than a Protest Strategy
Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi’s confrontation with the National Conference leadership has exposed one of the most important unresolved questions in post-2019 Kashmir politics:
Can the NC remain the political home of those who want Article 370 restored while simultaneously governing within the constitutional framework created after Article 370’s abrogation?
Ruhullah says the answer depends on refusing to normalise that framework.
Omar Abdullah’s strategy is more incremental: regain statehood first, strengthen the political and institutional position of J&K, and avoid making an immediately unattainable Article 370 restoration a condition for every political engagement.
That difference has now become impossible to ignore.
And there is a revealing irony in the dispute.
Ruhullah is not accusing the NC of abandoning Kashmir. He is accusing it of changing the language through which it fights for Kashmir.
That makes this more than an intra-party disagreement.
It is a battle over the NC’s identity, the interpretation of its electoral mandate and the future vocabulary of Kashmir’s mainstream politics.
If Ruhullah’s approach gains traction, the NC could move back towards a sharper Article 370-centred political movement.
If Omar’s strategy prevails, the party may increasingly become a pragmatic governing force focused on statehood, development and negotiation.
Either way, the argument will not remain confined to the NC.
It will shape the larger contest between Article 370, statehood, constitutional identity and political pragmatism in Jammu and Kashmir for years to come.
