Under British rule, the entire princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was commonly referred to as “Kashmir,” a usage rooted in the historical prominence of the Kashmir Valley — a historical framing that continues to shape political imagination today.
Fresh political statements seeking the separation of Jammu from the Kashmir Valley have revived a long-running, though often episodic, debate over the internal reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir, raising questions about who first articulated the idea and what has driven its re-emergence.
The most recent trigger came earlier this month when BJP legislator Sham Lal Sharma renewed calls for a separate Jammu state, arguing that the region has faced discrimination and portraying Jammu as more “nationalistic” than the Kashmir Valley. Though the BJP leadership has distanced itself from Sharma’s remarks, the statement reopened fault lines that have existed for over two decades.
Roots of the idea: 2002–04
The origins of the demand lie in the early 2000s. In 2002, during the Farooq Abdullah-led National Conference government, the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly passed an autonomy resolution, which was later rejected by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led central government.
Around the same time, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) passed a resolution calling for the trifurcation of the Indian-controlled part of Jammu and Kashmir into Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. The resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal, citing the need to “resolve the Kashmir issue”.
In response, CPI(M) leader Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami moved a resolution in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly on December 16, 2003, opposing any division of the state. The resolution was adopted on March 3, 2004, reflecting a broad political consensus at the time against regional bifurcation.
Why has the issue resurfaced?
In recent weeks, the debate has intensified following administrative and institutional controversies, including the closure of a medical college in Katra after a majority of admissions reportedly went to Kashmiri Muslim students. The decision sparked political reactions and renewed allegations of regional bias in institutional allocation.
Disputes over the location of key institutions — including the proposed National Law University (NLU) — have further sharpened regional rhetoric, with leaders on both sides citing development, access and representation.
What history says about what “Kashmir” meant
Historian Christopher Snedden, in Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris, explains that terminology has played a central role in shaping political narratives. Under British rule, the entire princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was commonly referred to as “Kashmir,” a usage rooted in the historical prominence of the Kashmir Valley.
“Culturally, population-wise and by reputation, Kashmir was at the political centre of post-1947 J&K,” Snedden writes, noting that even the Dogra rulers from Jammu were popularly described as “Kashmiris” due to the Valley’s fame and prestige.
Before August 15, 1947, the princely state comprised three provinces — Jammu, Kashmir and the Frontier Districts. After the 1947–48 conflict, it came to include five regions: Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, "Azad Kashmir" and the Northern Areas (called Gilgit-Baltistan since 2009).
Snedden argues that the Valley’s historical prominence, rather than administrative design, explains why the larger geopolitical entity came to be known as Kashmir.
Post-2019 reorganisation and new fault lines
The state was formally bifurcated in 2019, when the Narendra Modi-led government abrogated Article 370, ending its autonomous status, and reorganised Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
Now, calls are emerging to further divide the remaining Union Territory, with some voices in Jammu seeking statehood, while others advocate separate administrative status for Pir Panjal and the Chenab Valley, regions that are geographically, linguistically and culturally distinct from the Jammu plains.
Pir Panjal, Chenab regions push back
Independent MLA Muzaffar Iqbal Khan, who represents Thanamandi in Rajouri district, said the people of Pir Panjal and Chenab Valley do not support the demand for a separate Jammu state.
“If Jammu has the right to demand a separate state, then Pir Panjal and Chenab Valley also have the right to demand statehood of their own,” Khan told reporters, citing long-standing neglect in development and institutional allocation.
He alleged that major institutions such as AIIMS and IIM have consistently been allotted to Jammu, while districts like Rajouri, Poonch, Doda, Kishtwar and Ramban remain sidelined.
Khan, a former judge who entered politics and won the Thanamandi seat in the 2024 Assembly elections as an Independent, said these regions face distinct social and geographical challenges that warrant separate administrative consideration.
Sajjad Lone seeks an ‘amicable divorce’
Adding a new dimension to the debate, Peoples Conference president Sajjad Lone became the first Valley-based mainstream leader to openly call for a reassessment of the administrative relationship between the Jammu and Kashmir divisions.
In a statement, Lone said the time had come for an “amicable divorce,” arguing that Jammu had become “the proverbial stick to beat the Kashmiri with.”
“It is not only about development. Jammu has become the stick used to malign Kashmir constantly,” Lone said, accusing Jammu-based leadership of remaining silent when the Centre “took away everything” after 2019 but displaying “selective courage” against Kashmir.
Lone also urged Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to honour his promise of establishing the National Law University in Budgam, questioning why Jammu should oppose a law university in Kashmir when it already hosts an IIM.
NC government response
Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Choudhary strongly opposed any move to bifurcate Jammu and Kashmir, warning that such calls would damage the region’s civilisation, culture and economic stability.
“Anyone who talks of dividing Jammu and Kashmir is an enemy of its people,” Choudhary said, describing such rhetoric as “false, childish and dangerous”.
Read more| Delimitation and major changes in the electoral map of Jammu and Kashmir.
Jammu traders warn that separating from Kashmir would harm the economy
Jammu traders have opposed calls for a separate state, warning that such a move would severely impact the region’s economy, weaken trade, and undermine national interests.
According to members of the trading community, Jammu lacks sufficient independent resources and is already struggling due to declining business activity, limited government support, and the absence of tourism-driven revenue.
Traders argued that separation from Kashmir would worsen these challenges, pushing businesses into deeper hardship.
“Both regions are interdependent. Separation will damage this balance, and Jammu will suffer more,” they said, stressing how historical economic linkages—through trade, tourism, and employment—have benefited both Jammu and Kashmir.
They called for the full restoration of statehood for Jammu and Kashmir, describing it as the only viable way to address regional grievances.
Traders also expressed concern over the earlier bifurcation that led to the creation of Ladakh, stating, “Ladakh was already taken away, and further division will only weaken the region.”
While political leaders invoke development and representation, the renewed calls have only deepened unresolved tensions following the 2019 reorganisation.