Re-merger of Ladakh with Jammu & Kashmir: Omar Abdullah’s Historic Call from Gulmarg Snowfields | Political Feature
By: Javid Amin | 25 January 2026
A Snowy Summit with a Political Message
On Republic Day 2026, from the expansive, iconic snow slopes of Gulmarg, Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah delivered a politically charged appeal: “Re-merge Ladakh with Jammu & Kashmir.” This was not an ordinary speech, nor merely a political soundbite targeted at local constituencies. Rather, it was a strategic declaration framed to resonate with history, symbolism, and contemporary political discourse.
Abdullah’s choice of location — Gulmarg, one of Kashmir’s most recognizable landscapes — was deliberate. The snow-covered slopes serve as not just a backdrop for tourism, but a cultural and emotional symbol of Kashmir’s identity. By juxtaposing his appeal with this evocative setting, Abdullah aimed to reaffirm Kashmir’s historical unity and underscore the broader implications of territorial divisions enacted in 2019.
This feature unpacks the many layers behind this statement: political context, historical roots, reactions from Ladakh and Jammu segments, governance implications, opposition responses, and what this issue means for the broader trajectory of federal relations in India.
Historical Context: From Accession to Bifurcation
1. The State Before 2019
Prior to August 2019, the former state of Jammu & Kashmir included three distinct regions: Jammu, Kashmir Valley, and Ladakh. Under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, Jammu & Kashmir enjoyed special autonomous status — a unique arrangement that allowed it to have its own constitution, flag, and significant control over internal matters.
Ladakh, though administratively part of this state, was culturally and geographically distinct, characterized by a predominantly Buddhist populace in Leh and a Muslim population in Kargil. Despite these differences, its political and administrative links remained tightly integrated with the broader state.
2. The 2019 Reorganisation
On August 5, 2019, the Government of India — led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) — took a landmark constitutional step:
-
Article 370 was abrogated.
-
The single state of Jammu & Kashmir was bifurcated into two Union Territories:
• Jammu & Kashmir (with a legislature), and
• Ladakh (without a legislature).
This decision terminated the special status and administrative autonomy that the region had maintained since 1947, bringing both territories under comprehensive central administrative oversight.
The Gulmarg Declaration: What Omar Abdullah Said
Standing amidst Gulmarg’s pristine white slopes, Abdullah’s address encompassed critical themes:
1. Critique of BJP’s 2019 Decision
Abdullah directly accused the BJP of fracturing the historic unity of Jammu & Kashmir by bifurcating the state and separating Ladakh into its own Union Territory. He insisted that this bifurcation has weakened local governance and representation in Ladakh and that Ladakhis have suffered because of the UT status.
2. Call for Re-merger of Ladakh
He argued that Ladakh should be reinstated within the administrative fold of Jammu & Kashmir, restoring the pre-2019 territorial unity. Abdullah framed this not just as political revisionism, but as a restoration of historical justice and an attempt to reinvigorate democratic representation for Ladakh’s populace within a larger legislative framework.
3. Warning Against Jammu Division
Abdullah also took aim at recent murmurs within some political circles advocating for Jammu to be carved out as a separate state. He warned: “You ruined Ladakh, now you want to ruin Jammu too?” This rhetorical question was aimed at deterring internal fragmentation of Jammu & Kashmir’s identity and reducing political polarization.
Why Gulmarg? Symbolism Meets Strategy
1. Gulmarg’s Iconic Status
Gulmarg, in the Baramulla district, is more than a ski resort; it embodies the cultural identity and tourism aspirations of the region. By choosing this venue, Abdullah invoked emotional resonance with those who identify deeply with Kashmir’s landscape and heritage.
2. Tourism and Political Messaging
The timing and location also interlinked political messaging with ongoing concerns about tourism, climate change, and economic recovery — issues Abdullah has separately highlighted as influencing governance priorities.
Governance Realities: Union Territory vs State Administration
1. Jammu & Kashmir as a Union Territory
Post-2019, Jammu & Kashmir became a Union Territory with a legislature, giving it limited state-like autonomy, while Ladakh became a UT without a legislature — administered directly by the Centre. This means Ladakh lacks an elected assembly to represent local aspirations at the legislative level, a point of contention that Abdullah and other critics highlight as a democratic deficit.
2. Local Sentiment in Ladakh
While Abdullah emphasizes the disadvantages of UT status, it is important to recognize that Ladakh’s internal political dynamics are diverse. Over the years, some Ladakhi leaders and civil society groups have articulated concerns over land rights, identity protection, and cultural autonomy in the absence of an elected legislature — fueling ongoing demands for statehood or enhanced autonomous frameworks. Historical appeals from Ladakhi leaders for tribal protections reflect these anxieties.
3. Jammu’s Position
The Jammu region has its own dynamics. Some political figures within and beyond BJP have discussed separate statehood for Jammu, based on administrative and cultural differences. Abdullah has publicly criticized such proposals, comparing them to divisive historic ideologies, as reported in recent statements where he invoked the two-nation theory narrative to caution against communal fissures.
Political Reactions: Stakes for National and Regional Parties
1. National Conference (NC)
Omar Abdullah and his party, the National Conference, have long championed the restoration of Jammu & Kashmir’s pre-2019 administrative form — a unified entity with greater autonomy. The NC’s platform links this to broader calls for reinstating Article 370 — a position they argue reflects local aspirations for historical justice and democratic governance.
2. BJP’s Posture
The BJP defends the 2019 reorganisation as a step toward national integration and administrative reform. When questioned, senior party leaders have reiterated their belief in Jammu & Kashmir’s unity as part of India. Discussions within the party sometimes involve clarifying that current organisational decisions do not equate to advocating separate states within the region.
3. Opposition Voices
Other regional voices — including some from Jammu and Kashmir’s political spectrum — have taken varied positions. For instance, some members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and other local stakeholders have different regional cohesion strategies, while some advocates in Ladakh have diverse views on autonomy and identity needs. These plural views complicate the political landscape, making the debate more than a binary choice.
Governance Challenges: Representation, Resources, and Rights
1. Lack of Legislative Representation in Ladakh
One core criticism Abdullah cited is that Ladakh lacks its own legislature, which limits local political representation. Without an assembly, citizens in Ladakh do not have elected platforms to shape legislation or hold administrations directly accountable — a contrast from the UT of Jammu & Kashmir, which maintains a legislative assembly.
2. Resource Allocation and Administrative Gaps
Discussions continue about how assets and liabilities were divided after bifurcation, with some NC figures stating Jammu & Kashmir received fewer assets compared to Ladakh — raising questions about equity and administrative impact, although these claims vary in public debate.
Broader Implications for Federal Politics
1. National Discourse on Statehood and Autonomy
Abdullah’s statements feed into larger national conversations about federal governance, state autonomy, and structural integrity. If demands for re-merger gain traction, they could reshape public discourse on India’s administrative architecture — especially given competing narratives about regional aspirations and central authority.
2. Electoral and Policy Impacts
Given upcoming electoral cycles and policy reviews, voices like Abdullah’s could influence policy frameworks — including discussions on restoring full statehood to Jammu & Kashmir and re-evaluating UT arrangements.
3. Identity, Culture, and Governance
Debates over Ladakh’s administrative status are also intertwined with deeper concerns about cultural identity, tribal protections, and local governance rights. How these issues align or diverge from broader political strategies will significantly inform policy directions in the years ahead.
Ground Reactions: Local Sentiments and Civil Voices
1. Voices from Ladakh
On the ground in Ladakh, residents and civil society groups have complex views. Some welcome direct development initiatives post-2019, while others remain concerned about land rights, cultural preservation, and absence of a local legislature. These diverse sentiments underscore that any policy must address more than administrative reconfiguration — it must engage local aspirations meaningfully and inclusively.
2. Jammu Perspectives
In Jammu, reactions vary widely — from support for stronger regional identity to apprehensions about any felt marginalisation in governance or development. The debate over separate statehood for Jammu reflects these layered sentiments and the delicate balance between unity and regional autonomy.
3. Kashmir Valley Voices
In the Kashmir Valley, where political mobilization and historical grievances around Article 370 remain salient, Abdullah’s appeal for territorial unity resonates with sections of public opinion that view restoration of past frameworks as a path toward political normalcy. However, voices from younger demographics also demand pragmatic development and stability which they see as tied to inclusive governance, not just symbolic undoing.
Expert Perspectives: What Analysts Say
Political analysts across the country frame Abdullah’s declaration through different prisms:
-
Constitutional purists view the re-merger demand as an assertion of local democratic rights.
-
Federal governance scholars point to the need for balance between regional autonomy and national integration.
-
Security analysts argue that any structural change must account for ground stability, cultural sensitivities, and geopolitical context.
Collectively, experts warn that simplistic binaries — such as pro- or anti-Centre — miss the complexities of local aspirations, governance mechanisms, sustainable development, and identity politics.
Policy Pathways: What Would Re-merger Look Like?
If the demand for re-merger progresses beyond political rhetoric to legal pathways, several structures could be considered:
1. Constitutional Amendment:
This would require parliamentary approval and compliance with constitutional procedures.
2. Statehood Restoration:
Re-elevating Jammu & Kashmir from UT to full state status — a process National Conference leaders advocate — could set the stage for administrative realignment.
3. Enhanced Autonomy for Ladakh:
Alternatively, enhanced mechanisms — such as a Legislative Assembly or tribal protections under the Sixth Schedule — could address representation concerns without full merger.
Each pathway involves complex negotiations between local stakeholders, political parties, civil society, and the central government — and any outcome will require extraordinary political consensus.
Conclusion: The Road Ahead for Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
Omar Abdullah’s appeal from the snow-covered slopes of Gulmarg did more than advocate a territorial change: it reignited a broader debate about identity, governance, political equity, and India’s federal architecture.
The 2019 bifurcation of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set in motion administrative, political, and social dynamics that continue to reverberate. Calls for re-merger are rooted not merely in political contestation but in deeper questions about representation, autonomy, and regional dignity.
As India heads further into the 2020s, the debate over Ladakh’s status — and its relationship with Jammu & Kashmir — is likely to remain a defining issue. Whether through political negotiation, legislative action, or organic consensus among the people themselves, the pursuit of an equitable and sustainable solution must address both aspirations and realities on the ground.
