There are weeks when a place seems to be moving in several directions at once. The week gone by was one such week for Jammu and Kashmir.
It was a week of cinema and culture, but also of protests and grievances. A week in which Kashmir welcomed the world, while many of its own young professionals continued to wait for decisions from their government. A week of ambitious infrastructure plans, political assertions, administrative deadlines and, above all, a familiar question:
When will announcements become outcomes?
The first International Film Festival of Jammu and Kashmir was undoubtedly the defining positive story of the week.
For four days, Srinagar, Jammu and Gulmarg became meeting points for filmmakers, actors, technicians, critics, students and cinema enthusiasts from India and abroad. With 135 films from 41 countries, the festival gave Jammu and Kashmir something it has long needed—a platform on which the region could be seen through the lens of culture and creativity rather than conflict alone.
But the real importance of IFFJK lies not in four days of screenings.
It lies in what happens during the remaining 361 days of the year.
The Chief Minister has spoken of transforming J&K from merely a filming location into a centre for storytelling, talent development and filmmaking. That is precisely the right ambition. The festival’s success should ultimately be measured not by the number of dignitaries who attended it, but by the number of careers it helps launch, films it helps produce, technicians it helps train and local stories it helps take to the world.
Kashmir has the landscape. What it needs now is the ecosystem.
A functioning single-window clearance mechanism, transparent incentives, production infrastructure, film education, technical training, opportunities for local artists and technicians, and a year-round programme of screenings and workshops are essential if the festival is to become more than an annual celebration.
Otherwise, there is a danger that IFFJK could become another impressive event that leaves behind memories but not institutions.
This is where the question of governance becomes unavoidable.
While international filmmakers were discussing cinema in Srinagar, MBBS and BDS interns were on hunger strike demanding a higher stipend. National Health Mission employees were protesting over pay parity, job security and social-security benefits. Daily wagers were again on the streets seeking a resolution to years of uncertainty.
These are not marginal issues.
They concern people who keep hospitals functioning, public services running and government institutions alive.
The government has engaged with some of these groups and has indicated that several matters are being pursued with the Centre. That engagement is welcome. But government employees and young professionals do not live on assurances. They live on salaries, contracts, security and written orders.
The medical interns’ dispute is particularly difficult to justify as a prolonged administrative stalemate. Young doctors working demanding shifts while receiving a modest stipend cannot reasonably be expected to remain indefinitely patient while their demand moves from one office to another.
At the same time, healthcare workers have a responsibility towards patients. A protest may be legitimate, but essential medical services cannot become collateral damage in an administrative dispute.
The government must therefore move quickly—not merely to end the protest, but to address the underlying grievance fairly and transparently.
A written order is worth more than ten verbal assurances.
The same principle applies to NHM workers. The Health Minister has said that a proposal concerning their demands has already been sent to the Government of India and has appealed to employees to resume duties. The administration may have limitations in resolving matters that depend on central approval. But those limitations should be communicated honestly, timelines should be made public, and responsibility should be clearly assigned.
Citizens deserve to know who is responsible for what.
That brings us to the larger constitutional question confronting Jammu and Kashmir—the restoration of statehood.
Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has again maintained contact with Union Home Minister Amit Shah over pending issues, including statehood and the Transaction of Business Rules.
Nearly two years into the elected government’s tenure, the continuing uncertainty over the division of powers between the elected government and the Lieutenant Governor is not merely a political talking point. It has consequences for administration and accountability.
An elected government must have sufficient institutional authority to govern effectively, while the Union Government must provide clarity on the constitutional framework within which that government operates.
The people of J&K should not have to navigate an administrative grey zone to understand who is responsible for a decision.
And then there is the politics.
The controversy surrounding Vande Mataram, the remarks of political leaders, the continuing debate over the historical condition of Kashmir and the competing narratives of political parties all show how quickly public discourse can become consumed by symbolism.
There is nothing wrong with political debate.
But Kashmir has far more urgent questions.
Why are projects delayed for years?
Why do workers remain temporary for decades?
Why do students have to protest repeatedly to obtain written orders?
Why do infrastructure projects become trapped in land acquisition, permissions and departmental coordination?
Why do citizens sometimes have to approach political leaders personally to obtain services that should be available through ordinary administration?
These are the questions that should dominate public discourse.
The Chief Minister’s direction to clear bottlenecks in delayed Mini-Secretariat projects within a month is welcome. But deadlines matter only when someone is held accountable for missing them.
The same applies to the Srinagar Ring Road, power infrastructure, smart meters, heritage conservation and other projects repeatedly discussed in government meetings.
A government that sets deadlines must also establish consequences for those who repeatedly miss them.
Kashmir’s heritage presents another example of the gap between recognition and action.
We routinely speak about our heritage as a priceless asset. Yet monuments face encroachments, litigation, delayed restoration and shortages of technical expertise. Our heritage cannot survive on speeches and commemorative events.
The same contradiction is visible in our environment.
We celebrate Dal Lake while struggling to protect it. We promote tourism while putting pressure on fragile ecosystems. We showcase traditional crafts while artisans struggle to reach markets.
The answer is not to choose between development and preservation.
The answer is to make preservation part of development.
There are encouraging signs.
Kashmir Expo is giving artisans and entrepreneurs access to wider markets. SKUAST-K is looking towards a more internationally connected future. Students are earning recognition beyond the region. The Kashmir Theatre Conference is bringing scholarship and performance together. Rail connectivity is increasingly important for horticulture.
These initiatives demonstrate that J&K has talent and enterprise in abundance.
What is often missing is continuity.
We have no shortage of inaugurations. We have a shortage of follow-through.
That distinction is crucial.
A bridge inaugurated but unfinished is not development. A policy announced but never implemented is not reform. A committee constituted but never reporting is not governance. A grievance portal that does not resolve grievances is not digital transformation.
And a film festival that does not leave behind a stronger film industry will remain only a festival.
The first IFFJK has, however, given Kashmir something valuable: confidence.
It has reminded the country and the world that Kashmir can host global cultural conversations. It has reminded young Kashmiris that cinema can be a profession, an industry and a vehicle for telling their own stories.
That opportunity must now be protected from bureaucratic inertia.
The festival should become a year-round institution—not merely an annual event. Local filmmakers should have access to training, equipment, mentors and markets. Film schools and universities should be brought into a permanent partnership. Productions coming to J&K should leave behind skills, employment and local capacity.
If that happens, IFFJK will have achieved something much greater than a successful inaugural edition.
It will have helped change the economic and cultural relationship between Kashmir and cinema.
The world around us, meanwhile, is becoming increasingly unstable. From West Asia to the Strait of Hormuz, from the Ukraine conflict to growing geopolitical tensions, international developments are already influencing energy prices, trade and economic confidence.
India’s BRICS presidency comes at a moment when the credibility of multilateralism itself is being tested.
The message from the turbulence around us should be simple: wars rarely resolve the political questions that created them. Dialogue, diplomacy and engagement remain indispensable.
That lesson is relevant everywhere, including Kashmir.
Peace is not a weakness. Dialogue is not surrender. And disagreement does not have to mean permanent hostility.
As Kashmir enters another week, there is much to be hopeful about.
But hope must not become an excuse for complacency.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir have heard enough promises. They now need performance.
They need a government that can convert a deadline into completion, a committee into a decision, a policy into an opportunity and an assurance into a written order.
They need institutions that function without citizens having to protest outside their gates.
And they need politics that spends less time fighting over yesterday’s slogans and more time preparing Kashmir for tomorrow.
The inaugural film festival has shown that Kashmir can open its doors to the world.
Now governance must show that Kashmir can also deliver to its own people.
Because the real test of a government is not what it announces, but what the ordinary citizen can actually see, feel and experience.
