The Foundation Day, observed on October 31, commemorates Jammu and Kashmir’s reformation as a Union Territory under direct administration by India. This restructuring came after the Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, revoked the semi-autonomous status of Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, a move that has polarized opinions. For some, the transition represented a step toward unity and security for India, while for others, it represented a significant reduction in local governance and political autonomy. The NC’s boycott has therefore become emblematic of broader frustrations that continue to pervade local politics, further strained by the evolving electoral and administrative landscape in the region.
The NC’s stance draws attention to widespread discontent about the region's trajectory. Although political unrest in Kashmir has periodically made headlines, the combination of delayed local elections and unresolved questions around statehood have intensified frustrations. Abdullah himself, a former Chief Minister, has been vocal about restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s previous state status. He and other leaders argue that the current arrangement limits effective governance and diminishes the region’s political voice. Abdullah’s recent statements have underscored a need for more definitive actions from the central government, as well as clarity on the long-promised return of statehood, an assurance given by Indian leaders following the 2019 reorganization. While the national government has reiterated its intentions to restore statehood, tangible timelines remain absent.
This discontent is paralleled by a political fragmentation within the region, notably in the divided opposition to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), India’s ruling party. Despite shared concerns, the NC and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the other major regional faction led by Mehbooba Mufti, have yet to consolidate a unified front. The two parties, historically opposed to BJP policies in Kashmir, have continued to operate independently, with their political strategies diverging on key issues, including electoral coordination and policy toward the central government. According to analysts, this division could inadvertently benefit the BJP, particularly in constituencies reshaped by recent electoral boundary changes. Adjustments to the constituency borders, such as those in the Anantnag-Rajouri area, have altered the demographic balance, complicating opposition efforts and potentially giving the BJP an advantage in these electorally sensitive areas.
In contrast, regions such as Ladakh exhibit different political dynamics, with a relatively unified front against the BJP’s regional policies. Local leaders in Ladakh have criticized the BJP's handling of regional demands, claiming that the promised development has not materialized, leading to diminishing support for the party in the area. These sentiments highlight a distinct regional response that contrasts with the more divided landscape in Jammu and Kashmir, demonstrating how diverse constituencies within former state boundaries have reacted differently to national policy shifts.
At the grassroots level, the boycott of Foundation Day reflects a broader dissatisfaction that extends beyond party leadership. Many citizens in Jammu and Kashmir have expressed concerns over limited political freedoms and the perceived centralization of authority, which they feel has sidelined local governance and undermined their voices. These sentiments have been further fueled by delays in the region’s long-promised assembly elections, a commitment reiterated by Modi yet without a fixed date. These elections are particularly significant, as they represent a critical step toward restoring local legislative powers—a demand that resonates strongly among both opposition leaders and the public. Local political analysts suggest that an eventual election could either channel some of this discontent or amplify it, depending on the outcomes and the degree of autonomy afforded.
The BJP, meanwhile, has defended the administrative restructuring, pointing to improvements in security and infrastructure across the region. Party representatives argue that the reorganization has facilitated investment and development, citing several infrastructure initiatives. BJP officials also maintain that these changes have brought greater political stability and diminished insurgent activity, portraying them as necessary steps to unify Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India. However, opposition leaders, including Abdullah, counter these claims, arguing that the reorganization has restricted democratic space rather than expanded it, and that promises of economic advancement have not substantially materialized in local communities.