By Asem Mohiuddin
After the closure of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Super Speciality Hospital and Medical College following pressure from right-wing groups, Jammu now seems to be moving toward another major political churn: the demand to separate Jammu from Kashmir and grant it full statehood.
This demand is no longer limited to a few fringe voices. It is gaining visible support across Jammu, with civil society groups, right-wing political parties, some academicians and social media activists openly backing it. Local media has also added fuel to the debate, repeatedly arguing that for the past 79 years Jammu has suffered discrimination in governance, while Kashmir has cornered a bigger share of government jobs and development funds. There are people who oppose the idea of a separate Jammu state, but their voices are increasingly drowned in the noise of social media and street politics.
The demand became sharper and more aggressive after the controversy around Sri Mata Vaishno Devi Medical College. Some Hindu groups, backed by the BJP, objected to the merit-based admission of Muslim students. They argued that the presence and food habits of Muslim students would hurt their religious sentiments. This was despite the fact that the college is funded by the state and also receives grants from the Shrine Board of Mata Vaishno Devi. The demand that only Hindu students should be allowed was legally impossible, given the public character of the institution. Yet later the National Medical Commission shut down the college, citing serious infrastructural deficiencies, and directed the government to shift students to other institutions in the Union Territory.
Those who had demanded the closure celebrated on the streets. For many of them, it felt like proof that even illegal or unconstitutional demands could be achieved through pressure. The government appeared to bend after protestors cordoned off the Civil Secretariat and threatened large-scale agitation across Jammu. Encouraged by this success, the focus has now shifted to a much bigger goal: separating Jammu from Kashmir and turning it into a full-fledged state.
This demand is clearly difficult and may not be achievable in the near future. But the way the idea is spreading through social media and public discourse shows how quickly it is gaining emotional and political force. Even if political parties, especially the BJP, are publicly cautious or distant, many believe that sustained pressure could eventually force an official shift in position.
The idea of a separate Jammu state is not new. It has existed for decades, but for most of that time only a small section supported it. What is new is that it is now moving to the centre of politics, with people openly owning and defending the idea. If this momentum continues, it is unlikely that Jammu and Kashmir will complete 200 years of unity after Maharaja Gulab Singh bought Kashmir for 75 lakh Nanakshahi rupees on 16 March 1846 under the Treaty of Amritsar. Gulab Singh was already ruling Jammu, and after acquiring Kashmir he merged Ladakh, Jammu, Kashmir and Baltistan into one state called Jammu and Kashmir.
Despite being very different in culture, geography and physical continuity, this state survived as a single unit for generations due to shared economic interests. Even after 1947, when Pakistan captured parts of it, the remaining region stayed politically united. What held this unity together was economic dependence. Trade routes connected the regions, markets depended on each other, and economic need slowly turned into cultural bonding.
Ladakh broke away in 2019 to become a separate Union Territory. Now Jammu too seems to be drifting away from this old relationship. As of today, Jammu and Kashmir have completed around 180 years together. But in both regions there is now a growing sense of alienation. Each side feels the other has taken more—whether in government jobs, development funds or political space. Many in Kashmir also believe that separation may be the only way forward.
Social media debates reflect the same bitterness. What once was a relationship built on need and mutual dependence now looks fragile. The question is no longer just political. It is emotional and historical too: will this bond survive long enough to see 200 years, or is it already standing at the edge of collapse?
The author is an editor of Weekly Magazine The Legitimate and views expressed in this article are his own.
