State Elections in IIOJK: What the Verdict Reveals?

After a decade, state polls were conducted in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) in three phases on September 18, September 25, and October 1, with results announced on October 8. In these elections, the major electoral battle was between two alliances: the National Congress (NC) and Congress versus the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Out of 90 seats, the NC-Congress alliance secured 49, with the PDP-BJP alliance trailing behind. Moreover, NC, one of the oldest political entity of the disputed region, emerged as the largest party defying predictions of a hung assembly. It won 42 seats and ultimately formed the government. Omar Abdullah, who four months ago was defeated with over 2 lac votes in Lok Sabha polls 2024, was sworn in as the Chief Minister. Although the government in IIOJK has been formulated, the verdict of these elections points towards a few glaring realities that define the political horizon of disputed territory.

Over the past decade, the people of IIOJK have faced relentless suppression of fundamental rights under the BJP government. This crackdown intensified after the revocation of Articles 370 and 35-A, centralising power in New Delhi and reshaping the demographic and administrative structure of the disputed territory. 

Against this backdrop, these assembly elections served as a referendum on the BJP’s Hindutva policies imposed on the disputed region. Despite electoral manipulation through unjust delimitation of assembly segments, repression of dissenters, and false assertions of ‘development,’ the people overwhelmingly voted against them. Plus, the electoral mandate they attained does not comprehensively represent all sections of the disputed territory. Out of 29 seats won by the BJP, the majority were from the Hindu-dominated Jammu region, where the Delimitation Commission added six seats in 2022. Moreover, even political factions aligned with the BJP faced public disapproval. For instance, the BJP’s ally PDP ranked in the bottom half of the seat tally, while many independent candidates were defeated, as they were widely perceived to be BJP proxies.

On the other hand, after saying ‘No to BJP’ (as noted by Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi), the people of the disputed territory have handed the mandate of governance to the NC. The National Conference effectively harnessed the prevailing anti-Delhi sentiment. However, the real challenge for Omar Abdullah and his government will be steering governance in IIOJK while contending with the power firmly centralised in New Delhi. Fearing electoral defeat – which they ultimately suffered – the BJP preemptively curtailed powers of the Chief Minister in July by amending the ‘Transaction of Business of the Government of Union Territory Act, 2024’, shifting authority to the Lieutenant Governor. This power transfer strips the CM of control over key bureaucratic appointments essential for effective governance. Many analysts predicted that the relationship between the CM of IIOJK and the LG could mirror the contentious dynamics observed in Delhi’s governance model. However, events following the NC’s rise to power suggest that Omar Abdullah has adopted a conciliatory approach toward the BJP government, opting for engagement rather than directly confronting New Delhi.

During the electoral campaign, the National Congress defended the region’s autonomy by including restoration of Article 370 in its manifesto. However, right after assuming power, the unambiguous stance on revival of statehood of the disputed territory was replaced with a pacified tone. In his first Cabinet meeting, the CM passed a resolution on the statehood of IIOJK while leaving the restoration issue of Articles 370 and 35-A untouched. This move garnered a lot of criticism from opposition parties, who termed the resolution as ‘nothing less than a ratification’ of BJP’s move of August 5, 2019. 

Given this initial stance of Omar Abdullah’s government, it is likely that it will continue fostering cordial relations with the BJP-led Union government, despite the limited governance and authority granted to it.

The emergence of a powerless government will do little to alleviate the suffering of the people of IIOJK. This election result symbolizes the Kashmiri peoples’ defiance against oppression more than the political success of any faction. True relief for Kashmiris lies in granting them the right to self-determination, as prescribed by the United Nations Security Council, not through electoral exercises overshadowed by the Indian government’s decades-long repression of the disputed region.

Ajwa Hijazi is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. She can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »