I. Ahmed Wani
Union Minister Kiren Rijiju’s statement in Leh on 28 and 29 August 2026, that the Centre is finalising a special Article 371 framework for Ladakh, has intensified political debate across the former state of Jammu and Kashmir. Speaking at the silver jubilee of the Druk Padma Karpo School, Rijiju said the commitment made earlier by Home Minister Amit Shah is now being converted into a concrete arrangement by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The proposed model would create seven district councils matching Ladakh’s expanded map, with protection for land, jobs, culture, environment and traditional practices. Full statehood and Sixth Schedule status remain off the table for now. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to visit Ladakh soon to discuss the provisions with residents. These steps follow sustained talks held since 2023 between the Leh Apex Body, the Kargil Democratic Alliance and the Centre.
In the Kashmir Valley the same announcement has collided with an internal crisis. Farooq Abdullah challenged Srinagar MP Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi to resign and seek a fresh mandate if he claimed independent strength. Ruhullah has confirmed that he will quit both the National Conference and the Lok Sabha on 3 November 2026, the 26th death anniversary of his father Aga Syed Mehdi, who was killed in a terrorist IED blast in 2000. Talk of a new party is already spreading. In Jammu, smaller groups continue to press for a separate state. The Valley’s already divided political field looks set to split further.
Another party will not help ordinary people. Kashmir has produced too many organisations that rise quickly and then serve personal or factional ambitions rather than public needs. This constant multiplication has weakened the region’s ability to negotiate with Delhi. When leaders compete for space instead of building collective strength, development slows, constitutional questions remain open and uncertainty continues.
Allama Iqbal put the same warning in a single couplet:
Aik ho jayein to ban sakte hain khursheed-e-mubeen,
Warna in bikhre hue taron se kya kaam bane.
“If they unite, they can become a radiant sun. Otherwise, what can be achieved by these scattered stars?”
Ladakh shows a different route. Progress toward constitutional safeguards did not come from rival parties outbidding one another. It came from coordinated pressure by political leaders, socio-religious groups and civil society in both Leh and Kargil. The Leh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance maintained joint engagement with the Centre for years, despite old differences between the two districts. That unity produced leverage. The result is a framework now moving toward completion. It is imperfect for some, yet it is real and it sits inside the Indian Constitution. United and direct struggle delivered results.
Kashmir faces greater complexity, yet the same logic applies. Aga Ruhullah Mehdi holds the largest parliamentary seat in the region. Resigning now risks deepening the vacuum that ordinary citizens already feel. Removing a major voice from the National Conference is equally damaging. What is required is not more parties but a shared platform built on clear rules. First, open acceptance that all are Indian citizens. Second, firm rejection of terrorism and extremism in every form. Third, rapid drafting of a single demand charter focused on the political and economic needs of the people inside the constitutional framework.
Such a platform needs someone capable of bringing rivals to the same table, and M Y Tarigami is the obvious candidate for that role. He has done it before. In 2002 he helped bring together the People’s Democratic Forum, a platform of thirteen legislators drawn from the independents and the two CPI(M) MLAs, with Hakeem Yaseen among its members, who later floated his own party, the People’s Democratic Front. In 2019 he was central to the formation of the Gupkar Declaration, which held parties of very different histories to a common position at a moment of extraordinary pressure. He carries credibility across ideological lines, a record of speaking for workers and farmers rather than for dynasty, and the patience that alliance building demands. Once again he can prove himself the region’s best political engineer.
The People’s Democratic Party also retains enough organisational reach and coalition experience to help start this process. The larger parties must set aside short-term calculation. Politics can wait years. Citizens cannot. Statehood, identity safeguards, land protection, faster development and real accountability belong to the public, not to any single organisation.
Indian experience confirms the point. Special provisions under Article 371 for Nagaland, Mizoram and Sikkim grew from regional consensus on land, culture and local control. When communities spoke with one voice, the Centre responded with lasting arrangements. Periods of intense internal division in the same regions delayed progress and invited heavier central control.
Outside India the pattern holds. In Northern Ireland the 1998 Good Friday Agreement became possible only after parties that had treated one another as enemies accepted power sharing, rejection of violence and democratic consent. Division prolonged the conflict. Shared purpose produced institutions that have held. In Catalonia, repeated cycles of competitive nationalism without a coherent cross-party strategy for engagement with the Spanish state have generated drama but limited concrete gains on fiscal or cultural issues for ordinary residents. In Mizoram the 1986 Peace Accord followed years in which separate groups finally subordinated factional goals to a common demand for peace and autonomy inside the Indian Union. Stability then allowed attention to shift to development.
Kashmir’s leaders face direct questions. Does another party expand democratic space for citizens, or simply multiply elite rivalry? Can a region that has already paid the cost of disunity afford further division when Ladakh shows what coordinated pressure can achieve? If major parties treat constitutional demands as private bargaining chips rather than shared duties, how long can public trust last? Will the next generation inherit working institutions, or only endless rivalry?
The required steps are practical. Major parties must take responsibility for alliances based on principle rather than convenience. Leaders of Ruhullah’s standing must measure personal conviction against the wider effect of resignation and further fragmentation. An inclusive process to draft a common charter must begin soon, placing security, dignity, economic opportunity and constitutional clarity above individual political futures.
Ladakh has shown that patient, united advocacy inside the Indian Constitution can produce results. Kashmir’s political class still has time to follow that example instead of ignoring it. Continued division means continued weakness in Delhi and continued frustration for people who have waited long enough for coherent representation. A shared goal for a shared cause remains the only realistic way forward.
Let the process start at the earliest.
