It has been over nine months since Jammu and Kashmir transitioned back to elected governance after years of Lieutenant Governor-led administration. This return to democratic rule was met with high expectations. Citizens hoped for change—real, tangible governance that would bring delivery, accountability, and progress. The electoral process reignited public faith, offering a renewed sense of ownership over their future. But nearly a year on, that optimism is fast eroding. On the ground, the harsh reality is that governance remains largely absent. Elected representatives are in office, but their authority appears nominal. The structures of administration persist unchanged, and for many, it feels like democracy in name, but not in function. This article examines the deepening governance crisis in Jammu and Kashmir—not just of policies and programs, but of public trust, institutional credibility, and democratic intent.
High Expectations No Real Change: People voted with hope. Across regions and ideologies, there was a common belief that the return of an elected government would translate into better services, responsive administration, and more localized problem-solving. But instead of progress, stagnation continues. No major policy initiatives have emerged to tackle pressing issues. Basic civic infrastructure remains neglected. In cities like Srinagar and Jammu, poor drainage, narrow and congested roads, erratic electricity supply, unregulated traffic, and lack of parking continue to frustrate daily life. Public health facilities remain under-resourced. Government schools lack basic amenities. Grievance redressal mechanisms are missing in action. The administration feels absent or overwhelmed, and there’s little sign of any overarching planning or direction.
Statehood Argument: A Convenient Excise? A commonly cited justification for this inaction is the unresolved issue of statehood. While the demand for restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s full statehood remains legitimate and enjoys broad support, it cannot be used as an alibi for governance paralysis. Elections were held under the Union Territory framework. Every candidate and party knew the constitutional realities. They entered the fray, made promises, and won public trust within that context. It is disingenuous, therefore, to now cite lack of statehood as a reason for non-performance. The pursuit of statehood should continue as a parallel political process. Governance, however, must continue—urgently, effectively, and within the mandate available. Instead, what has emerged is a vacuum of will. Ministers appear unsure of their powers. Departments remain sluggish. Elected representatives function more as symbolic placeholders than decision-makers.
LG’s Clarification—And What Followed: In a significant statement, the Lieutenant Governor publicly clarified that all departments—except the Home Department—now fall under the jurisdiction of the elected government. This was a pivotal moment. It removed the ambiguity and made it clear that the elected leadership had control over key sectors like health, education, agriculture, urban development, and public works. Even former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah acknowledged this publicly, stating that governance responsibility had shifted to the elected government. This clarity brought fresh hope. Citizens expected ministers to take charge, conduct departmental reviews, respond to long-pending issues, and usher in long-overdue reforms. But nothing changed.
People Want Goverance, Not Excuses: Citizens aren’t demanding miracles. They’re asking for basic governance. They want roads that don’t flood in a drizzle. They want regulated traffic and marked parking spaces. They want working streetlights, clean neighborhoods, and garbage disposal systems. They want uninterrupted electricity and fair billing. They want hospitals with doctors and medicines, and clean water in their taps—not just speeches from stages. They want their elected representatives to listen, act, and deliver—not shift blame or disappear behind bureaucracy. But what they see is a void. No fresh initiatives, no public engagement, no ministerial presence. Despite the return of democratic institutions, the machinery continues to operate on auto-pilot—remote-controlled and unaccountable.
“The signs of genuine governance are missing. What was expected to be a turning point has turned into a disappointing status quo. The image of Omar Abdullah scaling a wall was more than symbolic—it reflected the broader condition of governance in the region: blocked, diminished, and sidelined. This situation must not be allowed to harden into a pattern. If it continues, the public won’t just lose faith in a particular government—they’ll begin to lose faith in the very act of voting. The time to act is now. The people of Jammu and Kashmir deserve more than ceremonies. They deserve functioning democracy—and real governance.”
Democracy Doesn’t End With Elections: Elections are the beginning of democracy, not its end. What happens after the ballots are counted defines the health of democratic institutions. So far, Jammu and Kashmir is witnessing a ceremonial democracy. Cabinet meetings are rare. Administrative files remain stuck. Ministers appear hesitant. People find no evidence that governance has changed hands. This creates disillusionment—not only with the current government but with democracy itself. Voters begin to question whether their voice matters. And that is a dangerous place for any democracy to be in.
Where Is The Accountibility? Where are the public hearings? The grievance redressal camps? The departmental reviews? The status reports? Today, the biggest failure is not just poor service delivery, but the total absence of accountability. Power cuts, over-billing, water shortages, chaotic roads, and unregulated transport go unchecked. People don’t know whom to approach. Complaints vanish into black holes. The distance between the citizen and the state is growing. Alienation is deepening. And public trust in elected governance is fading fast.
Road Ahead; Goverance Must Begin Now: Jammu and Kashmir cannot afford more drift. Nine months is enough time to assess, prioritize, and act. The government must show intent, visibility, and urgency. If the demand for statehood is being pursued, let it be done politically and constitutionally. But the administration must not be left to rot in the meantime. Ministers must take control of their departments. Hold meetings. Visit project sites. Engage with public delegations. Fix timelines. Communicate directly with the people. The Chief Minister must lead—not passively, but assertively and publicly. At the same time, the Centre must clarify the limits, if any, of devolved power. If there are constraints, let them be debated. If governance is to be delivered, let it be enabled—not stalled behind silence and confusion.
Conclusion; Reset The Clock Before It’s Too Late: Nine months on, the elected government in Jammu and Kashmir has not inspired public confidence. The signs of genuine governance are missing. What was expected to be a turning point has turned into a disappointing status quo. The image of Omar Abdullah scaling a wall was more than symbolic—it reflected the broader condition of governance in the region: blocked, diminished, and sidelined. This situation must not be allowed to harden into a pattern. If it continues, the public won’t just lose faith in a particular government—they’ll begin to lose faith in the very act of voting. The time to act is now. The people of Jammu and Kashmir deserve more than ceremonies. They deserve functioning democracy—and real governance.
(The author is a freelancer. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
Ahmad Ayaz
[email protected]
