The people of Jammu & Kashmir need to shape a clear narrative regarding the path forward. They need to move away from narratives that needlessly widen the gap between them and the rest of the country. Our destiny is tied to India. Expanding the emotional or political distance serves no interest of the people of J&K.Unfortunately, many politicians continue to employ rhetoric that fuels suspicion and deepens divides. Our primary effort must be to bridge these gaps rather than expand them, says J&K’s veteran politician, Ghulam Hassan Mir (GHM) who is currently senior vice president of Apni Party.
In an exclusive Straight Talk session with TIMES LINK Editor, Sajjad Bazaz (SB), Mir, in reply to a question said, “Where we have struggled historically is that our public discourse has often been derailed by emotional slogans. When emotion dictates political goals, the outcome is inevitably disappointment, and the actual objectives remain unfulfilled.” He said a recurring issue in J&K’s political narrative is that leaders frequently promise outcomes completely beyond their constitutional or operational control. He said, “For instance, during recent election campaigns, parties promised the immediate restoration of Article 370 and statehood through assembly resolutions. I often ask our educated youth: how can a state assembly unilaterally grant or restore measures that depend entirely on the Union Parliament and the Central Government?”
Excerpts of the conversation
SB: To begin with, I would like you to reflect on your political journey to understand where your political career evolved over the decades.
GHM: Look, I have been involved in politics since my youth. To put it simply, I am someone who finds deep personal satisfaction in this political path. When I first became conscious of the political environment around me, I resolved to play an active role within it.
Reflecting on the past, much has occurred, some goals were accomplished, while others remained unfulfilled. Yet, I derive immense satisfaction from knowing that I have pursued a meaningful course in public life.
My formal entry into politics took place in 1974. That was a period of significant political transition in Jammu & Kashmir. In 1975, Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, who had long been distanced from mainstream politics, abandoned the Raee-e-Shumari (plebiscite) movement and formally returned to the mainstream fold. His return generated a wave of public emotion and optimism across the region. Inspired by these developments, I decided to join mainstream politics as well.
SB: Just to clarify, when Sheikh Abdullah returned to mainstream politics, were you ever associated with the Raee-e-Shumari movement, or did you join the mainstream directly?
GHM: No, I was never associated with Raee-e-Shumari. I was young, focused on my studies, and unattached to that movement. When Sheikh Sahib returned to the mainstream, I wrote a letter to both him and Mirza Afzal Beg Sahib, commending their decision. I expressed that stepping into the mainstream was a constructive move for the people of Jammu & Kashmir. The political trajectory established after 1953 had inflicted severe damage on our people, and its lingering repercussions are felt even today.
I have always believed that if leadership had guided our people toward a pragmatic and constructive path, the citizens of Jammu & Kashmir would be second to none in terms of progress and development. Unfortunately, the tense political atmosphere sparked in 1953 eventually culminated in militancy on the ground, subjecting J&K to immense suffering across all levels.
Local religious leaders must regularly address large congregations during Friday prayers. Beyond spiritual discourse, these platforms should also be utilised to encourage community initiatives – such as environmental cleanliness, waste management, and civic responsibility.
My core conviction has always been straightforward: continuing down a path of conflict only leads to destruction and loss of life. True leadership lies in ensuring peace, stability, and guiding our people toward sustained progress.
In 1983, I contested and won my first assembly election on a National Conference (NC) ticket.
SB: You won your very first election on the National Conference ticket in 1983. Then, in 1984, you rebelled against Dr. Farooq Abdullah’s government and subsequently became a Cabinet Minister under Ghulam Mohammad Shah…
GHM: Precisely. I became a Cabinet Minister under GM Shah. However, it is vital to explain the context behind that 1984 rebellion, as its true motivations have rarely been articulated clearly to the public.
During the 1983 elections, Congress had proposed an electoral understanding with the National Conference, but the NC leadership declined. That decision, while political, reflected a broader lack of maturity within the NC leadership at that time. The campaign became intensely emotional, driven largely by three core promises: protecting Article 370, ensuring that the chief secretary was a local, and securing local appointments for both the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Chief Justice. That was the political narrative surrounding Article 370 back then.
I often remind people today: when you raise such sensational slogans, can any regional leadership deliver on them single-handedly without the goodwill and support of the Union Government? On one side, emotional promises were made that could not be sustained independently; on the other, the Central leadership was being needlessly provoked.
During that period, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi addressed a public gathering. In response, certain NC leaders made deeply inappropriate and distasteful personal remarks against her. National interests and core political principles were completely sidelined, reducing the political discourse to personal hostility toward New Delhi.
Following the formation of the NC government, New Delhi proposed transferring the Chief Justice of the State high court. When this developed, Dr. Farooq Abdullah publicly declared that “blood would flow” if the transfer went through, while his Law Minister, Mr. P.L. Handoo, insisted it was legally impossible. Yet, just two days later, Chief Justice Mufti Bahauddin was transferred to Assam, and Justice V.V. Khalid from Kerala was appointed in his place.
Shortly after, while driving through Hari Singh High Street in Lal Chowk, Dr. Farooq Abdullah pulled over in his vehicle and asked me to join him. As a politically conscious worker, I raised the issue directly with him. I asked, “Dr. Sahib, we fought the election on these very promises. Just yesterday you stated you were not a bloodthirsty person, and Mr. Handoo claimed the transfer was unconstitutional. Why didn’t we pursue this to its logical conclusion?”
Dr. Farooq casually replied, “I just said that to make a point in the state.”
Hearing that response was a profound shock to me. It made me realise how deeply hollow and deceptive that emotional rhetoric had been what we would today call a jumla (empty slogan). It pained me deeply. I requested to be dropped off. Distressed, I walked along the road, initially contemplating my resignation.
However, as I deliberated on my next step, I realised that resigning would accomplish nothing. That moment became the major turning point of my political career. I reflected on my interactions with the public during the election campaign and recognised their genuine day-to-day grievances. I made a conscious decision to abandon emotional, slogan-driven politics entirely and commit myself strictly to developmental politics, prioritising public welfare, infrastructure, and peace.
SB: That marked the foundation of your shift toward developmental politics. What happened immediately after that realisation?
GHM: After deciding to focus on development, I organised a major public gathering in Tangmarg. Dr. Farooq Abdullah attended as the Chief Minister. He possessed a charismatic personality that drew large crowds, and the gathering was substantial. For the first time, I formally presented a comprehensive development agenda for the region to the Chief Minister. However, his immediate response was simply, “No funds, no funds, no funds.”
His administration had chosen a path of direct confrontation with the Central government, adopting the adversarial stance of the opposition. As a result, financial assistance from the Centre was choked, leaving us as newly elected representatives in a state of paralysis.
My core conviction has always been straightforward: continuing down a path of conflict only leads to destruction and loss of life. True leadership lies in ensuring peace, stability, and guiding our people toward sustained progress.
Meanwhile, the Congress-led Central government was keen on removing Dr. Farooq Abdullah’s administration, largely to teach him a political lesson for his conduct during the election campaign.
For us as representatives, a fundamental question arose: the emotional slogans used to win the election, such as safeguarding Article 370 – had proven ineffective, and the promise of regional development was being stonewalled. What purpose were we serving our constituents? Consequently, a group of us aligned with Ghulam Mohammad Shah and brought down the government.
SB: So your disillusionment made you to align with Ghulam Mohammad Shah to bring down the government?
GHM: Indeed. It was a matter of principle. When leadership fails on both fronts, unable to uphold its emotional promises or deliver basic governance and development, the administration loses its purpose.
Looking back at GM Shah’s tenure, those who broke away from the National Conference demonstrated a clear blueprint for productive, efficient governance. Even today, if you ask people about that brief era, many acknowledge the efficiency of GM Shah’s administration. The individuals involved in that movement proved themselves to be grounded, effective, and deeply connected to the people. It demonstrated that developmental politics holds a permanent, respected place in Jammu & Kashmir, alongside emotional narratives.
SB: Across political affiliations and ideological divides, which political figure in Jammu & Kashmir’s history has impressed you the most?
GHM: Generally speaking, I have rarely been easily impressed by contemporary figures I worked alongside. However, when examining the historical Chief Ministers of J&K, I hold immense respect for G.M. Sadiq.
G.M. Sadiq stood firmly for the rule of law and refused to countenance political hooliganism. He focused on building enduring institutions in the state, such as bringing the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India to J&K. Prior to his tenure, local elections lacked transparency, and citizens often had little faith in the results. Under his administration, during the 1967 and 1972 elections, a genuine political opposition took root in the state for the first time. He institutionalised a competitive democratic framework.
SB: Looking at your political trajectory, you started in the National Conference, moved to the Awami National Conference (ANC), served as a Cabinet Minister, and later became a key figure in forming the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). Could you briefly explain the reasons behind these transitions?
GHM: Certainly. When GM Shah’s government fell in 1986, partly precipitated by internal political dynamics, the political scene shifted heading into the 1987 elections. GM Shah was leading the ANC at the time and announced my candidacy without prior consultation. Though I did not publicly oppose him, he unexpectedly withdrew from the election process shortly after, declaring that the party no longer existed.
Faced with this situation, I chose to contest as an Independent candidate in the 1987 elections. I was young, firmly opposed to emotional politics, and facing Dr. Mustafa Kamal (Sheikh Abdullah’s son). Retreating would have looked like cowardice. Despite having no institutional party backing, I secured over 10,500 votes against the ANC’s traditional base of 14,500. That result reaffirmed my belief that an audience for developmental politics genuinely existed in the state.
Then, from 1989 onward, the onset of armed militancy paralysed mainstream political activities until 1996. In the 1996 elections, I contested as a Congress candidate – having aligned with Mufti Mohammad Sayeed – and lost by a narrow margin of 1,200 votes to the National Conference candidate.
Following the 1996 elections, while we were within the Congress fold, the party high command prioritised broader national political alignment and deferred leadership space to Dr. Farooq Abdullah. We argued that failing to act as a robust local opposition would alienate us from the public. Recognising the need for a viable regional alternative, we established the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).
SB: That is a crucial historical phase. How was the PDP conceived? As a founder member, could you share how the idea originated?
GHM: The original concept of a regional alternative did not initially originate with Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. Mufti Sahib had spent his career within national political parties and was initially hesitant about regional politics.
However, I strongly advocated for a new regional platform based on three imperatives:
1. A Regional Alternative: Breaking the unilateral dominance of the National Conference required a strong, localised alternative.
2. Internal Democracy: Providing a democratic alternative to what had largely become a family-dominated political structure in the NC.
3. Pragmatic Realism: Moving away from emotional rhetoric and adopting realistic, ground-level politics focused on mitigating the day-to-day suffering of the common citizen amid ongoing militancy.
I recall a specific gathering in Harmain, Shopian, attended by around 50 to 60 people, a significant crowd given the security situation at the time. During my address, I publicly articulated the necessity of establishing a new, regional political party that directly addressed local grievances. The strong public response at that meeting convinced Mufti Sahib to reconsider his stance, leading to the formal inception of the PDP.
When the PDP contested the 2002 assembly elections, widespread public dissatisfaction with the prevailing administration’s handling of security and governance created strong momentum. We secured 16 seats, Congress won around 20, and the NC retained 28.
During the subsequent government formation discussions in New Delhi, I advocated strongly for taking responsibility to establish a stable, people-centric administration focused on strengthening democratic institutions at the grassroots.
During my tenure as Minister for Housing and Urban Development, we prioritised local self-governance. Municipal elections had not been conducted across all urban bodies since 1978. Despite concerns raised regarding electoral rolls and voter demographics – which threatened to delay the process – I insisted that municipal governance was strictly about civic infrastructure, sanitation, and local development, rather than high politics. By separating civic administration from political disputes, we successfully conducted municipal elections, empowering local civic representatives for the first time in decades.
Grassroots democracy – whether through Municipalities or Panchayats – is essential because it decentralises power directly to villagers and local residents, allowing them to prioritise their own development needs rather than relying entirely on MLAs.
SB: What is your perspective on the current political discourse in Jammu & Kashmir?
GHM: A recurring issue in J&K’s political narrative is that leaders frequently promise outcomes completely beyond their constitutional or operational control.
For instance, during recent election campaigns, parties promised the immediate restoration of Article 370 and statehood through assembly resolutions. I often ask our educated youth: how can a state assembly unilaterally grant or restore measures that depend entirely on the Union Parliament and the Central Government?
While people may hold differing views on the ruling party at the Centre, statehood or legislative mandates cannot be achieved through mere rhetoric or assembly declarations alone; they require constructive engagement with New Delhi. Misleading the public with unrealistic declarations only breeds further disillusionment.
A forward-looking policy requires a double-sided commitment: citizens must commit to lawful, peaceful conduct, while the government provides a clear path toward amnesty, dignified living, and an end to punitive measures like property demolitions.
The same principle applied to past initiatives like Cross-LOC trade. Foreign trade and international borders fall strictly under the jurisdiction of the sovereign Central government, not regional administrations.
When Cross-LOC trade was initially discussed during Mufti Sahib’s tenure, I advised that engaging constructively with the Central leadership – then under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee – was the only viable path forward. While the initiative provided temporary economic engagement, it ultimately lacked a permanent institutional framework and was eventually derailed by security challenges.
Similarly, regional parties often invoke concepts like “Self-Rule” without offering clear, practical definitions. When former diplomats and administrators evaluated these ideas, they noted that true self-rule fundamentally begins with empowering local Panchayats and opening trade routes, outcomes that rely entirely on stable international relations between India, Pakistan, and neighbouring states.
When political parties repeatedly callfor “dialogue,” they must be clear and transparent with the public regarding the specific agenda and parameters of those discussions. The Central government’s stance has consistently maintained that dialogue and terror cannot coexist. Rhetoric must be replaced with practical, transparent steps that prioritise the safety, progress, and future of our youth.
SB: You were among the early political figures who actively engaged in outreach and peace initiatives during peak periods of instability. Could you reflect on that experience?
GHM: Throughout my career, I have consistently maintained that violence and the gun offer no solutions to complex political or societal challenges. Islam inherently teaches peace, yet religious sentiments have frequently been exploited across the world for short-term political ends, leaving the common citizen to suffer the consequences.
During the peak of militancy in the 1990s, when fear dominated the region, I chose to remain accessible and unescorted in Srinagar. My core message to the youth and to militants was always consistent: the path of violence leads only to destruction and grief. True leadership must direct the younger generation toward education, economic development, and long-term prosperity.
I actively facilitated dialogue between disaffected individuals, local leaders, and representatives of the Central government to encourage a shift away from violence and toward peaceful engagement. Our focus must remain on safeguarding lives, restoring normal public life, ensuring the dignified return of displaced communities like the Kashmiri Pandits, and creating a stable environment where our youth can thrive.
I was never afraid to advocate for dialogue because I firmly believe that without dialogue, no resolution is possible. Regardless of the rigid stances taken by opposing sides, a political deadlock cannot be broken without communication. Even during periods of high border tension, the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) continue to communicate through established channels. That communication happens precisely because dialogue remains indispensable. Someone always has to convey a message to the other side. Ultimately, there is no substitute for structured dialogue.
SB: What is your message in the current climate to India, to Pakistan, and to those involved in the acts of violence?
GHM: First and foremost, the people of Jammu & Kashmir need to shape a clear narrative regarding our path forward. We must move away from narratives that needlessly widen the gap between us and the rest of the country. Our destiny is tied to India. Expanding the emotional or political distance serves no interest of the people of J&K.
When I speak, I do so strictly from the perspective of public welfare, not on behalf of any government. Unfortunately, many politicians continue to employ rhetoric that fuels suspicion and deepens divides. Our primary effort must be to bridge these gaps rather than expand them.
SB: You have provided a comprehensive perspective on these challenges. Looking ahead, how do you envision your own political role and the future of your developmental agenda?
GHM: In any conscious political society, peace is the indispensable prerequisite for everything else. Without stability and peace, a society has no security and no sustainable future. Development naturally follows peace.
Where we have struggled historically is that our public discourse has often been derailed by emotional slogans. When emotion dictates political goals, the outcome is inevitably disappointment, and the actual objectives remain unfulfilled.
When I speak of realistic politics, I mean setting achievable targets through pragmatic methods. India is a vast and diverse nation. Jammu & Kashmir holds an important place within it, and no one can negate our role. However, we must take the initiative with firm determination to shape our own future. We must prove our capabilities through constructive achievements.
Our immediate challenges lie in our socio-economic realities. While our literacy levels have improved, unemployment among educated youth remains critically high.
SB: Are politicians not accountable for the plight of our educated youth? Young people spend their prime years studying, only to find themselves overaged for recruitment schemes by the time they reach 35 or 40.
GHM: It is a major challenge for our entire society. During election campaigns, parties like the National Conference promise 100,000 jobs within six months. Yet, accommodating 60,000 to 70,000 new job seekers every year requires systemic economic planning, not unrealistic political slogans that mislead the youth into waiting endlessly for public sector appointments. Eight months down the line, those promised government jobs remain nonexistent.
We must recognise that government employment alone cannot solve our unemployment crisis.
SB: What alternative framework do you propose for addressing unemployment?
GHM: Look at global economic patterns. Leaders across the world, whether in the US, India, Pakistan, or the UAE, actively seek private investment to drive job creation. Dubai, for instance, has built a thriving economy where a vast majority of the workforce comes through external investment and enterprise.
We must create a transparent, investment-friendly environment in Jammu & Kashmir. Unfortunately, a negative narrative was cultivated suggesting that outside investment would harm local interests. In reality, investors hesitate to bring capital into regions lacking sustained peace. When private investment stalls, local capital also retreats into passive assets like land purchasing rather than productive, job-creating businesses.
Furthermore, our educational system requires structural reform. We currently educate young people primarily to seek government jobs, creating large pools of qualified engineers, postgraduates, and PhD holders with limited private sector marketability. In advanced economies, education is closely linked with skill acquisition and early financial independence. Here, young adults often remain financially dependent on their families well into their late twenties and thirties due to a lack of practical vocational training.
We need a major shift toward skill development, vocational integration, and private enterprise. Public sector absorption has natural limits everywhere in the world. While we have talented academics and intellectuals, we must collectively build a consensus around practical economic reforms.
SB: Beyond governance, what role should broader civil society and community institutions play in driving these practical reforms?
GHM: Civic and religious leaders must actively address everyday societal issues. For example, local religious leaders regularly address large congregations during Friday prayers. Beyond spiritual discourse, these platforms should also be utilised to encourage community initiatives – such as environmental cleanliness, waste management, and civic responsibility. Cleanliness is an essential aspect of faith, yet our public spaces often suffer from neglect.
We have become accustomed to consuming global news and endless political commentary while neglecting the immediate, practical initiatives within our control. Intellectuals, religious scholars, and experienced citizens must sit together to formulate practical policies for local development and self-reliance. Violence and guns have yielded no positive outcomes; now is the time to embrace constructive, realistic solutions.
SB: Looking back over your long political career, which achievements have brought you the greatest personal satisfaction?
GHM: I am a content politician. I have never sought power for its own sake. My satisfaction comes from concrete, lasting contributions to key public sectors:
• Small Hydroelectric Projects: To address energy deficits, I pioneered the framework for developing small-scale, decentralised hydroelectric power projects through private participation without placing a financial burden on the state exchequer. Several such powerhouses remain operational today.
• Agricultural Mechanization & Saffron Revival: During my tenure as Agriculture Minister, I introduced modern mechanization to local agriculture and initiated a comprehensive ₹500-crore revival project for the saffron industry—including dedicated irrigation wells and processing facilities. We also established price stabilization measures that significantly increased returns for local farmers.
• Legal Aid Framework: In 1984, I initiated the state’s legal aid framework. While courts eventually streamlined it primarily toward supporting indigent litigants, my original vision was broader: to build grassroots legal awareness so that citizens understand their rights, procedures, and protection against administrative exploitation.
SB: A pressing issue raised by many families concerns individuals who have been detained or imprisoned for extended periods, as well as those facing administrative hurdles like passport denials or security verification blocks due to past events. What is your perspective on resolving these issues?
GHM: Before the recent elections, under the leadership of Mr. Altaf Bukhari, I authored a vision document emphasising the need to break the cycle of security measures, incarcerations, and violence.
Our proposal urged both the Central Government and local authorities to establish a clear time-bound framework for amnesty. The grievances and security issues of the past three decades must be addressed through a formal reconciliation process. Today, many individuals who turned away from past instability still face systemic barriers – such as denial of passports, business licenses, or government contracts – preventing them from integrating into normal economic life.
A forward-looking policy requires a double-sided commitment: citizens must commit to lawful, peaceful conduct, while the government provides a clear path toward amnesty, dignified living, and an end to punitive measures like property demolitions. Long-term stability requires reconciliation rather than perpetual repression.
SB: What is your stance on the long-standing issue of Kashmiri Pandit migrants and their return to the valley?
GHM: The displaced Kashmiri Pandit community suffered immense hardship and displacement due to the security breakdown in 1990.
While political parties frequently use the dignified return of Kashmiri Pandits as a campaign slogan, practical progress requires creating a secure, welcoming ground environment. The general public in Kashmir is fully prepared to welcome them back and live alongside them as an inclusive society. Whether they choose to settle in integrated neighbourhoods or designated accommodations, the priority must be safety, sustained economic opportunities, and active facilitation by both the Central and local governments. An inclusive, multi-community society is always stronger and healthier than an exclusive one.
