Maj Gen Sanjeev Dogra (Retd)
sanjeev662006@gmail.com
On a winter morning in Poonch, the Pir Panjal rises in quiet authority. Snow rests gently on pine branches, tea stalls breathe out warm vapour into the cold air, and life moves with a calm resilience shaped by altitude and isolation. These mountains are more than a physical divide. Over decades, they have come to symbolise a subtle but persistent shift in perception, opportunity, and aspiration within Jammu and Kashmir, a region held together politically, yet often drifting apart in lived experience.
Since its accession to India in 1947, Jammu and Kashmir has never been a single story. It has been a collection of landscapes and identities: valleys and plains, orchards and trade routes, pilgrimage towns and frontier villages, each with its own rhythm and priorities. The abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019 and the subsequent reorganisation into two Union Territories were intended to correct historical distortions and usher in a more equitable governance framework. Six years on, however, the debate has not faded. Instead, it has turned inward, raising a more unsettling question. Has internal balance truly improved, or have old asymmetries merely been rearranged?
Travel across the region and the contrasts assert themselves unmistakably. In the Chenab Valley, encompassing Bhaderwah, Doda, and Kishtwar, life is shaped by narrow roads, long distances, and fragile connectivity. Here, aspirations are neither ideological nor abstract. They are immediate and practical: all-weather roads that do not collapse with the first snowfall, hospitals that do not require day-long travel, schools that open pathways beyond subsistence, and employment that does not compel migration. These are not demands for privilege, but for parity.
Descend into Jammu city and the landscape opens into plains and bustle. Markets hum with steady commerce, pilgrimage tourism provides a dependable economic spine, and connectivity with the rest of the country is relatively robust. Yet beneath this apparent stability lies a recurring sentiment. Despite its economic contribution and relative calm, Jammu is often seen as administratively peripheral, its development repeatedly postponed and its grievances acknowledged but seldom resolved.
Across the Pir Panjal, the Kashmir Valley presents another reality altogether. Srinagar’s lakes mirror houseboats and minarets, while political uncertainty and security sensitivities continue to cast long shadows. For many in the Valley, the post-2019 period has brought tighter administrative control but little political reassurance. Tourism has returned in waves, yet the economy remains vulnerable to disruption, and deeper anxieties persist around representation, dignity, and long-term stability.
It is against this layered and unequal backdrop that demands for a separate Jammu state have resurfaced. Civil society groups and some political voices argue that the current arrangement has failed to correct decades of perceived discrimination. Their contention is that a separate state or Union Territory for Jammu, often visualised along the Pir Panjal boundary, would allow focused development, fairer employment practices, and greater cultural and political assertion.
Supporters of this view point to stalled infrastructure projects, allegations of bias in public sector recruitment, and the absence of region-specific economic planning. They argue that Jammu, with its plains geography, trade hubs, horticulture, and pilgrimage-driven economy, possesses both the capacity and the revenue base to sustain itself while addressing its priorities without competing for administrative attention with the Valley.
Yet this argument is far from uncontested. Traders’ bodies in Jammu warn that further division could fracture integrated markets, disrupt tourism circuits, and weaken livelihoods dependent on inter-regional movement. Resistance to separation also comes from within Jammu itself. Regions such as the Chenab Valley and Pir Panjal fear that a Jammu-centric state could reproduce the very marginalisation it seeks to escape, triggering demands for further subdivision and deepening internal fault lines.
There is also the unavoidable question of cost. Creating a new state entails heavy administrative expenditure in the form of new capitals, legislatures, bureaucracies, and security frameworks. In a region where developmental needs remain pressing, diverting resources towards governance architecture carries real opportunity costs. The experience of Ladakh’s bifurcation, while politically distinct, serves as a reminder that administrative separation does not automatically translate into rapid development.
Employment lies at the emotional core of this debate. Proponents of separate statehood see possibilities for targeted skill development, local hiring, and investment aligned with Jammu’s strengths. Tourism, in particular, is viewed as a sector that could benefit from focused promotion of destinations such as Vaishno Devi, Patnitop, and Bhaderwah. However, tourism in Jammu and Kashmir has historically thrived as a shared circuit, with Jammu serving as the gateway and Kashmir as the destination. Disrupting this linkage risks short-term economic losses that could outweigh long-term gains.
Security considerations add another layer of complexity. While Jammu has enjoyed relative stability, its security architecture remains deeply integrated with that of the Valley. Further internal fragmentation risks reopening political uncertainties that hostile external actors could exploit. Although post-2019 data indicates a decline in major terror incidents, history cautions that periods of political flux often precede renewed instability.
The official position of the central government and the BJP leadership remains unequivocal. Further division of Jammu and Kashmir is viewed as detrimental to unity and governance. The stated priority is the restoration of full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir as a single political entity, accompanied by administrative reform rather than territorial reconfiguration. Individual calls for Jammu statehood have been explicitly distanced from official policy.
Perhaps the answer, then, lies not in drawing new boundaries, but in redrawing governance itself. Transparent regional budgeting, empowered district administrations, equitable recruitment mechanisms, and region-specific development authorities could address many grievances without risking fragmentation. What Jammu, Kashmir, and the intermediate regions seek is not separation for its own sake, but dignity, fairness, and opportunity.
As one moves from the snowbound passes of Poonch to the plains of Jammu and onward to the quiet waters of Dal Lake, one truth becomes evident. Aspirations may differ, but the desire for stability and respect is shared. The Pir Panjal has long served as both barrier and bridge. Governance must learn the same lesson, that enduring solutions lie not in division alone, but in balance.
The post Jammu and Kashmir: Between Geography and Governance appeared first on Daily Excelsior.