THE political landscape of Jammu & Kashmir has long been defined by two dynastic families: the Abdullahs of the National Conference (NC) and the Muftis of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).
What began as mass mobilisation by popular leaders like Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and Mufti Muhammad Saeed has, over decades, evolved into a highly personalised and hereditary form of politics. In the recent years, this dynastic culture has come under sharp scrutiny for its lack of meritocratic legitimacy, immature tendencies and its apparent disconnect with the broader aspirations of the Kashmiri population.
Recent developments have only intensified this discourse. The visible grooming of Omar Abdullah’s sons Zahir and Zamir for political succession and the parallel political activities of Mehbooba Mufti’s daughters Iltija and Irtiqa, exemplify the deep entrenchment of familial succession in Kashmir’s political machinery.
The roots of dynastic politics in Kashmir trace back to the towering figure of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, whose charisma and leadership redefined Kashmir’s politics during and after the Dogra rule. However, after his death in 1982, the National Conference was handed over to his son Dr. Farooq Abdullah. What followed was not just a political succession but the beginning of a tradition where leadership was inherited, not earned.
The infamous tussle between Farooq Abdullah and his brother-in-law Ghulam Mohammad Shah (popularly known as Gul Curfew for his introduction of curfews in Kashmir) was seen by many Kashmiris in the 1980s as not just a political conflict but a fight over political inheritance. Anecdotal references of the time describe their public confrontations as if they were fighting over ‘bulls’, a metaphor mocking the people of Kashmir being treated as familial property.
Fast forward to 2024, and similar analogies are not just valid but growing stronger. Omar Abdullah, who inherited the mantle from his father Farooq, is now subtly introducing his sons into the political domain.
The recent events
In 2023 and 2024, Omar Abdullah’s sons Zahir and Zamir were repeatedly seen accompanying their grandfather Farooq Abdullah and father at various official and party events. They were present during the special cabinet meetings held in tourist destinations like Pahalgam and Gulmarg, attended by senior bureaucrats and cabinet ministers. Their constant presence and increasing public visibility point to a systematic grooming process.
For an uncomfortably long time, J&K has been saddled with dynastic politics, rendering its political landscape jaded with leaders of questionable merit. If the political imagination of the region remains confined to a few families, then Kashmir’s democratic journey will remain stunted. It’s time to shift focus from lineage to leadership, and dynasties to democracy.
In Ganderbal, historically the political bastion of the Abdullahs, the two sons were seen addressing public gatherings and in one recent instance, urged people to bring their grievances directly to them. This was a direct assertion of political agency and signalled their positioning as future claimants of the Abdullah dynasty.
Similarly, the Muftis are following a parallel trajectory. Mehbooba Mufti’s daughter Iltija Mufti contested the 2024 Assembly Election from Bijbehara, albeit unsuccessfully. Her other daughter, Irtiqa, has been actively engaging with the public discourse through social media, offering commentary on political developments in Kashmir and beyond.
These instances suggest a pattern that is more than coincidental. They represent a conscious effort to pass the political baton to the next generation even as these successors lack any proven record of public service, administrative experience or grassroots connect.
The shameful culture of entitlement
At the heart of Kashmir’s dynastic politics lies a culture of entitlement where leadership is presumed to be an inheritance and not a responsibility. This leads to a dangerous assumption among political heirs that public respect, authority and electoral success are due to them by virtue of their lineage and inheritance.
Sane voices in Kashmir argue that leaders like Farooq Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti have failed to evolve their political inheritance into platforms of inclusive and participatory governance. Instead, they have reinforced elite cocoons around their families, surrounded by loyalists who perpetuate the dynasty’s dominance.
Even more concerning is the lack of meritocracy. Unlike in other parts of the democratic world where leadership is earned through party ranks or public work, here the political successors are fast-tracked into leadership roles. There is no evidence of any rigorous democratic process within the parties themselves that could validate their rise.
PDP and the ‘Mullah’ factor
While both NC and PDP are synonymous with dynasticism, the PDP under Mehbooba Mufti, has also been vocal for promoting a particular community, the Mullahs. The Mullah community, which includes clans like Bukharis, Andrabis, Shahs, Qadris and Naqashbandis and others, comprises only about 3.4% of the Valley’s population. Yet, under PDP’s leadership, they have disproportionately dominated party tickets, government postings and bureaucratic roles in and off the PDP government.
During the District Development Council elections in 2020, it was found that nearly 70% of the candidates fielded by NC and PDP belonged to political families or closely connected elite communities. This further alienated large sections of society especially those from marginalised backgrounds who remain voiceless in the region’s political processes.
PDP’s tilt toward community based politics has long-term consequences. It entrenches caste consciousness, stifles democratic representation and marginalises those who don’t belong to favoured communities or families. This has undoubtly weakened the institutional foundation of the PDP and dented image of Mehbooba Mufti and undermined efforts for inclusive approach in the party.
Dynastic Politics: Why does it still persist?
One may ask: why does dynastic politics continue despite public disillusionment? The answer lies in a mix of historical conditioning, lack of credible alternatives and political manipulation.
Firstly, decades of personalised politics have normalised dynastic succession. Voters often associate families with stability, continuity and identity. Secondly, the electoral system in J&K has historically discouraged independent or grassroots candidates due to systemic biases, funding constraints and the overarching security environment and potential threats.
Lastly, dynastic politics thrives on patronage networks offering jobs, favours and protection to local stakeholders in return for political loyalty. Many bureaucrats, businessmen and local leaders benefit from the status quo and thus discourage reformistic tendencies in the political sphere of J&K and Kashmir in particular.
The dominance of dynastic elites has stifled the emergence of new leaders who could bring fresh perspectives and innovative governance. The political scene remains closed, stale and reactionary.
Notably, dynastic leaders have failed to deliver on key governance parameters. Be it unemployment, education, healthcare or corruption, successive regimes under dynastic control have performed below expectations. The governance model has focussed more on managing dissent, enjoy protocol and preserving power rather than transformative leadership.
The illusion
Kashmir is often romanticised as a politically sensitive and aware society. However, if such a society continues to accept and even celebrate hereditary politics without merit or accountability, this claim deserves serious reevaluation.
The people of Kashmir must ask: why is it that after four generations of Abdullahs and three of Muftis, there is still no credible roadmap for future leadership beyond their families? If the current crop of young Abdullahs and Muftis show no political acumen, vision or public service record then their rise is not a democratic choice but a dynastic imposition which people seem accepting.
The solution does not lie in vilifying these dynastic individuals but in re-structuring party systems and electoral practices to encourage broader participation. Political parties must democratise internally, allowing capable individuals to rise from the grassroots.
The civil society, the media and the electorate have a role to play in questioning and resisting dynastic dominance. The emergence of alternative political voices, particularly from educated youth, women and marginalised groups must be supported through institutional and societal reforms.
The future of Kashmir’s political system depends on breaking the cycle of entitlement and fostering a culture of merit, transparency and public accountability.
Kashmir’s political evolution must move beyond familial legacy and community patronage. The prominence of Zahir, Zamir, Iltija and Irtiqa as future political leaders without proving their merit is not a testament to their capability but to a failing democratic system that still confuses inheritance with leadership.
If the political imagination of the region remains confined to a few families, then Kashmir’s democratic journey will remain stunted. It is time for political discourse in Jammu and Kashmir to shift focus from lineage to leadership, from dynasties to democracy.
