FIDA IQBAL
After 1947, when autocratic rule came to an end in Kashmir, as it did in other parts of the subcontinent, the National Conference, headed by the late Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, emerged as the dominant political force. The party received considerable support from the Indian leadership under Jawaharlal Nehru, while Sheikh Abdullah also chose to align himself with India, making Jammu and Kashmir a part of the Indian Union, apparently with certain conditions. These arrangements, however, gradually changed over time.
The bonhomie between Sheikh Abdullah and Nehru did not last long. Their differences led to Sheikh Abdullah’s ouster in 1953 and the emergence of a new political dispensation under Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad.
What led to Sheikh Abdullah’s removal and the subsequent rise of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad is not my concern here. My concern, like that of many Kashmiris, is the present political system, which remains largely dominated by the third generation of the Sheikh family. The deep-rooted culture of dynastic politics is weakening the foundations of our political life.
Over the past seven decades, several political parties and groups have entered Kashmir’s political landscape. Some have been described as nationalist, others as mainstream, while many have represented separatist thought. Yet regional political leaders have largely dominated Kashmir, except during certain periods when national political forces exercised greater influence.
Following Sheikh Abdullah’s reconciliation with Indira Gandhi, the political scene came to be dominated largely by the National Conference, led first by Sheikh Abdullah, then by his son Farooq Abdullah and subsequently by his grandson Omar Abdullah. The People’s Democratic Party (PDP), founded by former Union Home Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, also emerged as a major political force and came to power in alliance with national parties.
Thus, alongside the Sheikh family, another political dynasty, the Muftis, established itself at the centre of Kashmir’s politics. Over time, other political families also gained prominence. Among them are the Lones, the Ansaris and the Aghas, associated with the late Abdul Ghani Lone, the late Maulvi Iftikhar Hussain Ansari and the Agha family of Budgam, respectively.
The Mirwaiz family also deserves mention. It has remained politically influential for generations and is presently represented by the young Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. Several smaller political families are also trying to establish themselves, although their influence remains limited compared with that of the more prominent dynasties.
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah had been active in politics since 1931. By challenging established political figures, including Mirwaiz Yusuf Shah and others, he gradually built a mass following. His tall personality, powerful voice and remarkable oratory made him a popular leader among the suppressed and deprived people of Kashmir. He understood the concerns of ordinary people and knew how to connect with them.
However, a leader who began his political journey as a champion of the common people eventually handed over the mantle of leadership and governance to his son, Farooq Abdullah, who had little political experience at the time. In doing so, he overlooked many senior and experienced leaders within his own party. This marked an important stage in the growth of dynastic politics in Kashmir.
The political capital built by Sheikh Abdullah over decades continues to benefit his family. Similar patterns can be seen in other political families as well.
In a region that has experienced decades of political uncertainty, many politicians have turned politics, and the opportunities that come with sharing power, into a family business. From Uri to Qazigund, one can find established political families that have remained active across three generations. There are exceptions, but they are few.
This is not a problem unique to Kashmir. Many states across the country face the same challenge, where political influence and leadership are passed from one generation to the next, often at the expense of fresh talent and new ideas.
The question is why politics has failed to break free from these dynastic clutches. Why are educated, capable and young people reluctant to enter politics and assume leadership roles? Why should good governance remain dependent on a limited number of political families when our society has so much talent to offer?
The words attributed to Socrates in Plato’s The Republic are particularly relevant here:
“The greatest penalty is to be governed by someone worse if one refuses to rule oneself.”
This thought carries an important message for our society. If capable and honest people stay away from politics, they cannot complain indefinitely about those who occupy positions of power. Democracy requires public participation, and leadership cannot remain the exclusive privilege of a few families.
Over the past decade or more, Kashmiri youth have made remarkable progress in almost every field. They are pursuing education, building careers and establishing themselves in business, science, technology and other professions, both within the country and abroad. Social media and artificial intelligence have further widened their horizons and opened new opportunities.
Unfortunately, this growing confidence and achievement have not been matched by a similar willingness to enter politics. Many educated young people appear reluctant to take up leadership roles, leaving the political field largely to established families and familiar faces.
Politics should not be treated as a family inheritance. It should be an open field in which ability, integrity, public service and commitment determine who leads. Political parties must encourage internal democracy, provide opportunities to new faces and allow young people to rise through their own merit rather than through family connections.
The responsibility, however, does not rest with political parties alone. Citizens must also look beyond family names, personalities and inherited loyalties when choosing their representatives. Blind support for any leader or family only strengthens the very system that prevents fresh leadership from emerging.
The only way to challenge this unhealthy culture is to encourage more individuals, particularly educated and capable young people, to enter politics and participate actively in public life. Kashmir needs leaders who can bring new ideas, fresh energy and a genuine commitment to the welfare of its people.
Unless we make a conscious effort to break the hold of dynastic politics, the ideals of empowerment and emancipation through democracy, cherished by our elders, will gradually lose their meaning. Democracy cannot flourish when political power remains confined to a handful of families. Without wider participation and genuine opportunities for new leadership, the promise of real democracy will remain an unfulfilled dream.
The author can be reached at mail@fidaiqbal.com
