Col Ajay K Raina
ajaykrraina@gmail.com
The introduction of a private member’s bill by a legislator from the Kashmir Valley proposing the creation of new districts-and more significantly, the division of the Jammu Province into three subregions-demands scrutiny beyond its ostensibly administrative intent. On the surface, such proposals are often couched in the language of “balanced development” and “administrative efficiency.” Yet, when examined against historical patterns, demographic realities, and the semantics of the proposed nomenclature, the move appears less technocratic and more deeply political.
At the heart of the concern lies an asymmetry that is difficult to ignore. While the bill seeks a structural reconfiguration of Jammu, no comparable exercise has been proposed for the Kashmir Province. This selective enthusiasm for administrative reorganisation raises a fundamental question: if decentralisation is indeed the objective, why is it not uniformly applied?
Jammu, by any objective metric, is geographically larger and administratively more diverse than Kashmir. Its regions-stretching from the plains of Kathua and Samba to the mountainous belts of Doda, Kishtwar, Rajouri and Poonch-exhibit variations in terrain, ethnicity, and even linguistic patterns. Yet, despite these differences, there exists a civilisational cohesion rooted in shared traditions, religious practices, and historical experiences. The cultural continuum across areas such as Doda-Bhaderwah-Kishtwar and Rajouri-Poonch is not merely incidental; it is organic and deeply embedded.
The proposal to carve out subregions that disproportionately align with Muslim-majority belts disrupts this continuum in a manner that cannot be dismissed as coincidental. More troubling is the reported nomenclature of these proposed subregions-terms that have historically found currency in narratives emanating from Pakistan’s intelligence establishment and have been amplified by separatist discourse within the Valley. The introduction of such terminology into formal legislative discourse is not a semantic triviality; it is a political signal.
If Jammu’s reorganisation raises concerns of fragmentation, the absence of a parallel exercise in Kashmir exposes an even more complex demographic reality. Contrary to the monolithic portrayal often associated with the Valley, Kashmir is home to a mosaic of linguistic and ethnic communities. Estimates suggest that out of a population of approximately 80 lakh, nearly 28 to 30 lakh individuals belong to non-Kashmiri-speaking groups.
These include Gojri speakers spread across the province, Hindko-speaking populations in districts like Kupwara, Bandipora and Ganderbal, Pothwari-speaking communities in Uri and adjoining areas, Pashto-speaking pockets in Ganderbal and Anantnag, and Sheena-speaking Dardic groups in Gurez and parts of Kupwara. Additionally, smaller but historically significant communities, such as the Hunza-origin groups around Hari Parbat in Srinagar and the Ladakhi Muslims residing in the Valley, add further layers to this diversity.
Despite this heterogeneity, there has been no serious political initiative to recognise or administratively empower these distinct identities within Kashmir. The silence is instructive. It suggests that the principle of decentralisation is being invoked selectively-applied where it serves a political purpose and ignored where it might dilute entrenched hegemonies.
This pattern is not without precedent. The persistent use of the term “Pakistan-occupied Kashmir” (PoK) to describe territories that are, in fact, part of the larger Jammu region reflects a long-standing narrative strategy. In reality, the demographic composition of what Pakistan refers to as “Azad Jammu and Kashmir” is overwhelmingly non-Kashmiri. Pothwari speakers constitute the majority, followed by Gojri, Mirpuri, Hindko, Dogri, Pashto, and Sheena-speaking communities. Yet, the nomenclature subsumes these identities under a broader “Kashmir” label-effectively erasing their distinctiveness.
The parallels with the current proposal are difficult to overlook. By advocating fragmentation within Jammu while preserving-and by implication, expanding-the conceptual and administrative unity of Kashmir, the bill aligns with a broader ideological project often described as the pursuit of a “Greater Kashmir.” Whether this is an explicit objective or an unintended consequence is, in some ways, immaterial; the structural implications remain the same.
It is also necessary to address the argument that private members’ bills rarely translate into law and therefore do not warrant serious concern. This is a misreading of legislative politics. The significance of such a bill lies not in its immediate legislative prospects but in what it reveals about the thinking of a section of the political class. It serves as a diagnostic tool, exposing underlying attitudes and long-term strategic orientations.
In this instance, the bill appears to reflect a persistent tendency among Valley-based political actors to view Jammu not as an equal partner within the Union Territory, but as a space to be managed, restructured, and, where possible, politically diluted. This perception is reinforced by recurring debates over resource allocation, revenue generation, and population figures-areas where data has often been contested and, at times, alleged to have been manipulated.
Even if one were to momentarily accept the stated objective of balanced development, a critical question remains unanswered: what institutional safeguards exist to ensure that newly created administrative units will not replicate the very patterns of neglect and exploitation that have historically been alleged? Administrative fragmentation, in the absence of structural reform, often leads to the decentralisation of inefficiency rather than the distribution of opportunity.
There is also a strategic dimension that cannot be ignored. The growing articulation of a demand for a separate Jammu Pradesh has altered the political calculus in the region. In this context, the proposed division of Jammu can be interpreted as a pre-emptive move-an attempt to diffuse and weaken a consolidating regional identity by segmenting it into smaller, less politically potent units. If so, the bill is less about governance and more about political containment.
It is reasonable to assume that such a proposal, if formally pursued, would find support across a broad spectrum of Valley-based political formations. This convergence would not necessarily stem from ideological alignment but from a shared strategic interest. In that sense, the bill functions as a unifying instrument within Kashmir’s political ecosystem, even as it introduces fault lines within Jammu.
The role of the Lieutenant Governor becomes critical in this context. The constitutional framework of the Union Territory vests significant discretionary authority in this office, particularly in matters that have far-reaching administrative and political consequences. The exercise of this authority must be guided not only by immediate administrative considerations but also by a long-term view of regional stability, equity, and national integration.
A judicious approach would require a comprehensive, data-driven assessment of the entire Union Territory-one that applies uniform criteria for administrative reorganisation across both Jammu and Kashmir. Such an exercise must be transparent, consultative, and insulated from partisan narratives. Anything less risks reinforcing perceptions of bias and deepening existing divides.
Ultimately, the debate triggered by this private member’s bill is not about the technicalities of district formation. It is about competing visions of regional identity, political representation, and territorial integrity. It is about whether administrative instruments will be used to bridge divides or to accentuate them.
In a region as complex and historically sensitive as Jammu and Kashmir, the stakes are invariably higher. Decisions that may appear administrative on paper often carry profound political and psychological implications. It is therefore imperative that such proposals are interrogated rigorously, debated openly, and evaluated not just for what they promise, but for what they portend.
The present proposal, when viewed in its entirety, raises more questions than it answers. That, in itself, is reason enough for it to be examined with the seriousness it deserves
(The author is the founder trustee of the Military History Research Foundation ®, India)
The post Redrawing Jammu, Reimagining Kashmir Anatomy of a Politically Loaded Proposal appeared first on Daily Excelsior.