Ahmad Ayaz
The Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC) is passing through a politically sensitive phase. What initially appeared to be discontent among a section of party legislators following the recent Cabinet reshuffle has gradually developed into a wider internal challenge. Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi’s decision to quit the party and resign from his Lok Sabha membership has added another dimension to the crisis. At the same time, a group of party MLAs has reportedly been holding consultations and meetings, expressing dissatisfaction with the leadership, its style of functioning and what they perceive as deviations from the party’s electoral commitments. These developments cannot be viewed in isolation. They come against the backdrop of two years of the Omar Abdullah-led government, during which several important electoral promises and public expectations remain subjects of considerable dissatisfaction. The restoration of statehood, employment, regularisation of contractual workers, relief in electricity charges, LPG assistance, the release of political prisoners and other commitments continue to occupy public debate.
The present crisis, therefore, is not merely about ministerial berths, portfolios or positions within the party organisation. It raises a larger question about the relationship between political leadership, elected representatives and the mandate given by the people. Ruhullah’s departure is particularly significant because his criticism has extended beyond internal party arrangements. He has questioned the leadership’s commitment to electoral promises and its response to the expectations of the electorate. Whether one agrees with his political approach or not, his departure has brought the question of accountability back into the centre of J&K politics. However, it would be premature to conclude that his exit, by itself, threatens the survival of the government. The more consequential development would be if the existing discontent among legislators translates into an organised political or legislative challenge. The real threat is not Ruhullah’s exit alone.
Ruhullah’s departure has undoubtedly created political discomfort for the JKNC leadership. It has also provided a focal point for those within and outside the party who have been questioning its functioning. His decision has made it increasingly difficult for the leadership to dismiss every criticism as an attempt to destabilise the government. Nevertheless, the departure of a parliamentarian, even one with considerable political influence, does not automatically translate into the loss of an Assembly majority. The government’s immediate survival depends on the support it commands in the Legislative Assembly. The real challenge for the JKNC would arise if the discontented MLAs decide to take their differences beyond internal meetings and turn them into a legislative confrontation. Their numbers, collective position and willingness to take political risks would then become decisive.
Reports of repeated meetings among disgruntled legislators, including discussions around a charter of demands, indicate that the issue is not necessarily confined to individual disappointment. The reported demands include changes in the ministerial composition, removal of certain advisers, greater consultation in party affairs and a more assertive approach towards electoral commitments, including statehood and Article 370. These are wider organisational and political questions that the leadership cannot resolve merely through symbolic appointments. The numbers and the anti-defection hurdle One of the most important factors shaping the present situation is the anti-defection law. The JKNC has 41 MLAs in the present Assembly strength, and a group of legislators wishing to merge with another political party would require at least two-thirds of the legislature party. That translates into 28 MLAs.
Following the 91st Constitutional Amendment, the earlier provision allowing a split by one-third of legislators ceased to exist. Consequently, a smaller group cannot simply walk out of its party and claim protection from disqualification by describing itself as a separate faction. Under the Tenth Schedule, which applies to the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly through Section 28 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, an MLA who voluntarily gives up membership of the party on whose ticket they were elected can face disqualification. The merger exception requires the support of at least two-thirds of the legislature party. This creates a substantial political and legal obstacle for any group considering a change of political affiliation.
Joining the BJP, for instance, may appear to some as a possible political alternative, but doing so without satisfying the constitutional requirements could expose the legislators to disqualification. Moreover, such a move would carry its own political consequences in a region where political affiliations and public perceptions remain sensitive. Similarly, joining another political party or announcing a separate formation would not automatically provide protection under the anti-defection law. There is also an important distinction between resigning from the Assembly and defecting to another party. An MLA may submit a resignation, but the seat becomes vacant only when the Speaker accepts it. A collective resignation by a substantial number of legislators could alter the effective strength of the Assembly and affect the government’s majority. However, resignation would mean surrendering an elected position and exposing oneself to the uncertainties of subsequent elections.
For legislators who have spent years building their political constituencies, this is not an easy decision. Can disgruntled MLAs bring down the government? This is where the situation becomes particularly interesting. The present Assembly has 90 elected seats, with 46 required for a majority when all seats are filled. The ruling alliance has been reported to command the support of 54 legislators, comprising 41 NC MLAs, six Congress MLAs, six Independents and one CPM member. According to the current political arithmetic reported on November 5, if 20 NC MLAs were to resign and their resignations were accepted by the Speaker, the effective strength of the Assembly would fall to 70, bringing the majority requirement down to 36.
The ruling alliance’s strength would then fall to 34, assuming all other alliance partners continued their support. This would leave the government short of a majority. This calculation demonstrates that a sizeable group of legislators could potentially create a serious constitutional and political challenge without necessarily defecting to another party. However, this is a hypothetical scenario, not an indication that 20 MLAs have decided to resign. Resignation carries substantial political risks, and the Speaker’s acceptance is also an essential step. The question, therefore, is not simply whether the disgruntled MLAs have the numbers to express their dissatisfaction, but whether they are prepared to sacrifice their Assembly memberships to take their protest to its logical conclusion. That remains a much bigger decision than holding meetings, issuing statements or submitting demands. Neither side can afford an immediate confrontation. The JKNC leadership has its own reasons to avoid an escalation. Omar Abdullah’s government represents a political opportunity that the party would not want to lose prematurely.
“Internal unrest within the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC)—marked by key resignations, legislator meetings, and governance concerns—has brought the party to a critical crossroads. While short-term political concessions and organizational adjustments may temporarily salvage the government, long-term stability requires the leadership to address fundamental governance issues and uphold its public and electoral commitments.”
After years of political uncertainty and the restoration of an elected government, losing power through internal dissension would be a major setback for the party. The leadership also knows that the political consequences of a government collapse would extend beyond the Assembly. It would raise questions about its ability to manage its own legislators, fulfil its commitments and provide stable governance. On the other hand, the disgruntled MLAs are equally aware of the risks involved in taking an extreme step. Resigning from the Assembly would mean giving up the security of their existing political positions. Joining another party without the required numbers would invite disqualification. Forming an alternative political platform would not, by itself, resolve the legal complications. Nor is there an obvious, politically comfortable alternative available to them. This leaves both sides in a difficult position. The leadership cannot afford to ignore the dissent, while the dissenting legislators cannot easily convert their anger into an alternative political arrangement.
In such circumstances, negotiations, accommodation and compromise become important possibilities. Are back-channel negotiations already underway? There are indications that efforts to contain the situation may already be underway. One development worth noting is the postponement of Mubarak Gul’s scheduled press conference on November 4. Gul had indicated that he would announce his future course of action amid his reported dissatisfaction following the Cabinet reshuffle and the uncertainty surrounding his organisational position in the party. His decision to defer the press conference, stating that he wanted to respect the sentiments of his colleagues and had received advice from people close to him, naturally attracted attention.
It would be premature to conclude that the postponement was the result of a formal understanding with the party leadership. However, reports of senior leaders acting as intermediaries between the disgruntled MLAs and the Abdullahs, coupled with Gul’s decision to postpone his announcement, suggest that attempts at reconciliation may be underway. The New Indian Express has also reported that the legislators have received feelers and that intermediaries are working to facilitate direct discussions. This lends some substance to the possibility of back-channel engagement, although the outcome remains uncertain. The next few days, particularly the proposed discussions between the dissident legislators and the party leadership, may provide a clearer picture of whether the differences can be resolved through negotiations.
The leadership must look beyond ministerial accommodation. While the immediate trigger for the discontent may have been the Cabinet reshuffle, reducing the entire controversy to the question of who received a ministerial berth would be a mistake. The concerns being raised reportedly go beyond individual political ambitions. They include the functioning of the party, the concentration of decision-making, the role of advisers, the relationship between elected representatives and the government, and the implementation of manifesto commitments. These questions deserve serious consideration. A Government cannot function effectively if its own legislators feel excluded from decision-making or believe that their concerns are not being heard.
Equally, elected representatives must recognise that ministerial positions are not personal entitlements. Their primary responsibility is to their constituents and the people who elected them. The leadership must distinguish between genuine grievances and individual aspirations. It should not treat every expression of disagreement as an attempt to destabilise the government. At the same time, dissenting legislators must demonstrate that their concerns are rooted in public interest and governance rather than merely dissatisfaction over the distribution of positions. There is a difference between internal democracy and a struggle for political accommodation. The former strengthens a party; the latter, if left unmanaged, can weaken its credibility.
The bigger question is governance. Perhaps the most important aspect of the present political developments is that the debate is taking place at a time when people expect tangible results from the elected government. The public mandate was not given merely to restore an elected political arrangement. It was also an expectation that the government would work towards fulfilling its promises and addressing the everyday concerns of the people. Unemployment, administrative inefficiency, delays in recruitment, the regularisation of contractual employees, electricity-related concerns, the restoration of statehood and the larger question of constitutional rights remain important public issues. If the government and the party leadership devote all their political energy to managing internal differences, the larger governance agenda risks being pushed further into the background. The party must also understand that public confidence cannot be restored through ministerial reshuffles, organisational appointments or political statements alone. It requires visible performance, accountability and a willingness to acknowledge shortcomings.
The leadership should use the present situation as an opportunity to undertake an honest review of its first two years in office, assess the implementation of its manifesto and establish a credible mechanism for consultation with its elected representatives. The disgruntled MLAs, too, must make it clear what they intend to achieve beyond securing political positions. Their credibility will ultimately depend on whether they can connect their demands with the expectations of the people. A possible compromise, but no permanent solution without accountability At present, both the JKNC leadership and the disgruntled legislators have compelling reasons to avoid an immediate political rupture. The leadership would not want to lose the government, while the legislators would be reluctant to risk their Assembly memberships without a clear alternative. This makes a negotiated settlement a possibility.
Some accommodation, greater consultation, organisational adjustments and assurances on governance-related concerns may help reduce the immediate tension. But any compromise that merely postpones the problem without addressing its underlying causes will offer only temporary relief. Ruhullah’s exit, the reported meetings of legislators, Mubarak Gul’s deferred press conference and the continuing questions over the party’s functioning have collectively brought the JKNC to an important political moment. The party leadership must now decide whether it wants to treat the situation as a temporary internal disagreement or recognise it as a warning about deeper organisational and governance-related concerns. Ultimately, the ball is in the JKNC leadership’s court. Saving the government may be its immediate priority, but restoring public confidence, honouring its electoral commitments and ensuring accountable governance are the larger responsibilities it cannot afford to ignore.
(The author is a Columnist and National TV debater. 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”)
