‘Jammu and Kashmir Are Inseparable’: Farooq Abdullah Draws a Red Line as Bifurcation Debate Resurfaces

Jammu and Kashmir Are Inseparable, Says Farooq Abdullah Amid BJP Leader’s Bifurcation Demand

By: Javid Amin | 12 January 2026

A Familiar Fault Line Reopens

In the deeply layered politics of Jammu and Kashmir, few issues evoke as much emotion, memory, and political consequence as the question of territorial unity. When National Conference (NC) president and former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah declared that “Jammu and Kashmir are inseparable”, he was not merely responding to a statement by a BJP legislator. He was reaffirming a foundational political philosophy—one rooted in history, identity, and the idea of a shared political destiny.

The immediate trigger was a remark by BJP MLA Sham Lal Sharma, who called for separate statehood for Jammu, alleging long-standing discrimination against the region. The statement reopened a debate many believed had been settled—at least temporarily—after the 2019 abrogation of Article 370, which itself fundamentally altered Jammu and Kashmir’s political status.

Farooq Abdullah’s response was swift, firm, and symbolically charged. Speaking during a visit to Narwal Fruit Mandi in Jammu, he rejected the idea outright, using a vivid metaphor: “Separating Jammu from Kashmir is like separating the head from the body.” In one sentence, Abdullah crystallised the National Conference’s long-standing opposition to any further fragmentation of the region.

This article examines the political context, historical background, regional sentiments, and potential consequences of renewed calls for bifurcation—while cross-verifying facts, political positions, and ground realities.

What Exactly Was Said: The Statement That Rekindled the Debate

The Demand from Jammu

BJP MLA Sham Lal Sharma recently suggested that Jammu should be granted separate statehood, arguing that the region has suffered discrimination and neglect. While demands for a “separate Jammu state” are not new, such calls gain heightened significance in the post-2019 political landscape, where constitutional and territorial changes have already reshaped the region.

Farooq Abdullah’s Response

Farooq Abdullah, addressing traders and locals in Jammu, rejected the proposal categorically. His key assertions included:

• Jammu and Kashmir cannot exist separately

• Any attempt at division would be politically and socially damaging

• The unity of regions is essential for stability

• Even Ladakh, according to him, feels disillusioned with separation

His metaphor—comparing Jammu to the head and Kashmir to the body—was deliberate. It conveyed interdependence, not hierarchy, reinforcing the idea that both regions derive meaning and strength from unity.

BJP’s Official Position: Distancing, Not Endorsement

Recognising the sensitivity of the issue, Sat Sharma, BJP’s Jammu and Kashmir president, quickly distanced the party from Sham Lal Sharma’s remarks. He clarified that the call for bifurcation was not the BJP’s official stand.

This clarification is crucial for two reasons:

1. It underscores internal diversity of opinion within the BJP’s regional leadership.

2. It reflects the party’s awareness that overt support for further bifurcation could trigger political backlash, especially when statehood restoration remains unresolved.

The BJP-led central government has repeatedly maintained that full statehood for Jammu and Kashmir will be restored “at an appropriate time”, but has avoided endorsing any fresh territorial reorganisation.

The Historical Backdrop: Unity and Division in J&K Politics

Pre-2019 Structure

Before August 2019, Jammu and Kashmir existed as a single state with:

• Jammu as the winter capital

• Srinagar as the summer capital

• A constitutionally guaranteed special status under Article 370

While regional disparities and grievances existed, the state’s political structure was built on the premise of regional accommodation, not separation.

The 2019 Turning Point

The abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A marked the most dramatic shift in the region’s political history since Independence. The state was bifurcated into:

• Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (with a legislature)

• Union Territory of Ladakh (without a legislature)

This move was justified by the central government as necessary for:

• Integration

• Development

• Improved governance

• Security stabilisation

However, it also deepened political anxieties, particularly regarding identity, representation, and democratic autonomy.

Why the Bifurcation Debate Is So Sensitive

Identity and Emotional Geography

Jammu and Kashmir is not merely an administrative unit; it is an emotional and historical entity. For many residents:

• Jammu represents cultural plurality and connectivity

• Kashmir represents political aspiration and identity

• Ladakh represents strategic and cultural uniqueness

Any attempt to redraw boundaries risks reopening identity-based fault lines that political processes have long tried to manage.

Electoral and Demographic Concerns

Further bifurcation raises complex questions:

• Who gains political representation?

• How are resources allocated?

• What happens to existing power-sharing mechanisms?

Farooq Abdullah’s rejection is grounded in the belief that fragmentation weakens bargaining power, especially in negotiations over statehood and autonomy.

The National Conference’s Consistent Position

The National Conference, founded by Sheikh Abdullah, has historically positioned itself as a party of regional unity within the Indian Union. Its core demands since 2019 have been:

• Restoration of full statehood

• Protection of identity and land rights

• Democratic representation through elections

Opposition to bifurcation aligns naturally with this ideological framework. For the NC, unity is not just symbolic—it is strategic.

Ladakh: The Unexpected Reference

Perhaps the most striking part of Farooq Abdullah’s statement was his claim that “even Ladakh wants to reunite with Jammu and Kashmir.”

Ground Reality in Ladakh

Since becoming a Union Territory, Ladakh has seen:

• Protests demanding constitutional safeguards

• Calls for inclusion under the Sixth Schedule

• Concerns over land, jobs, and cultural protection

While opinions in Ladakh are diverse, there is documented dissatisfaction with governance arrangements. Abdullah’s comment reflects this broader discontent, though it does not imply a unanimous desire for reunification.

Still, invoking Ladakh served a political purpose: to question the assumption that separation automatically delivers better outcomes.

Comparing Stakeholder Positions

Risks of Renewed Fragmentation Demands

1. Deepening Regional Polarisation

Repeated calls for separation risk reinforcing regional mistrust, particularly between Jammu and Kashmir divisions.

2. Political Instability

The absence of an elected assembly already limits democratic engagement. Introducing bifurcation debates could further complicate governance.

3. Strategic Implications

Jammu and Kashmir occupies a sensitive geopolitical space. Internal political fragmentation may weaken institutional coherence at a critical time.

Why Farooq Abdullah’s Words Matter

Farooq Abdullah is not a marginal political voice. He is:

• A former Chief Minister

• A central figure in J&K politics for decades

• A symbolic bridge between past and present political narratives

When he speaks of unity, he invokes both historical continuity and political caution.

The Larger Picture: Statehood, Not Separation

At the heart of the debate lies a broader demand that cuts across party lines: the restoration of full statehood.

For many in Jammu and Kashmir, the priority is not further division, but:

• Democratic representation

• Administrative accountability

• Political dignity

Fragmentation, critics argue, distracts from these goals.

Conclusion: Unity as a Political Statement

Farooq Abdullah’s declaration that “Jammu and Kashmir are inseparable” is more than a rebuttal to a BJP MLA. It is a reaffirmation of a political worldview that sees unity as strength and division as vulnerability.

In a region shaped by history, conflict, and compromise, calls for bifurcation resonate far beyond administrative convenience. They touch the core of identity, representation, and future direction.

As Jammu and Kashmir await elections and the promised restoration of statehood, one thing is clear: the question of unity remains central—and deeply contested.

For now, Farooq Abdullah has drawn a clear red line. Whether that line holds will depend on how politics, governance, and public sentiment evolve in the months ahead.