Political dynasties rarely recognise the warning signs of decline. When power remains within a family for generations, political inheritance can begin to look like an entitlement and personal loyalty can become more important than organisational strength. But the real test of leadership is not how long a family occupies the centre of power; it is whether it stands with its people when the political storm arrives.
The Abdullah family, which has dominated the National Conference for decades, now faces renewed questions about its leadership, its regional priorities and its ability to hold the party together. Omar Abdullah’s cabinet reshuffle on October 27 has intensified the debate. Four new ministers have been inducted, all from the Kashmir Valley, while Independent MLA Satish Sharma has been dropped, leaving the Jammu plains without a minister in the Council of Ministers. The reshuffle has also provoked discontent among senior NC leaders
The question is whether this controversy is an isolated disagreement over portfolios or another indication of a deeper problem in the party’s political culture. More importantly, it revives a longstanding criticism of dynastic politics: when power is threatened, do leaders share the risks with their workers, or are ordinary party supporters left to face the consequences?
A political legacy that cannot escape history
The National Conference was founded in 1932 as the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference. In 1939, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah renamed it the National Conference and formally opened its membership to people of other communities.
That transition was presented as a broader political vision. Yet critics continue to question whether the party has consistently translated its secular identity into equitable representation and respect for the aspirations of Jammu’s diverse regions.
The latest cabinet reshuffle has revived precisely this debate. The absence of representation for the Jammu plains has reinforced the perception that the political priorities of the Valley receive greater consideration in the government’s decisions.
The issue is not whether Kashmir deserves representation. It unquestionably does. The issue is whether a government responsible for the whole Union Territory can justify a cabinet in which Jammu’s plains have no direct ministerial representation.
For the BJP, the reshuffle reflects a wider contradiction between the NC’s claims of inclusive politics and the political consequences of its decisions. The party’s defenders may point to electoral arithmetic and administrative experience, but these explanations do not remove the need to address regional concerns.
A historic name cannot serve as a permanent certificate of inclusiveness. Every generation must earn public confidence through its conduct.
1953: Sheikh Abdullah’s fall from power
In August 1953, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was dismissed as Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir and arrested. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad succeeded him. This was a defining rupture in the region’s political history.
The episode arose from deep political disagreements over the future of Jammu and Kashmir and its relationship with India. It would be inaccurate to reduce such a complex crisis to a simple story of abandonment. Nevertheless, the episode demonstrated how rapidly political circumstances could transform the fortunes of a powerful leader and the organisation associated with him.
The party and its supporters had to navigate a new political order after the removal of the leader around whom the movement had been built.
The enduring lesson is that a political organisation cannot depend entirely on the authority of one individual. It must have institutions capable of surviving leadership crises without losing its purpose or abandoning its grassroots.
1984: A revolt within the family’s political circle
The events of 1984 exposed another vulnerability. Farooq Abdullah’s government was brought down after Ghulam Mohammad Shah, his brother-in-law, led a breakaway group of legislators. Shah became Chief Minister following Farooq Abdullah’s dismissal. His government was itself dismissed
The episode demonstrated that political alliances and family relationships could not guarantee organisational unity. A party that had won a decisive electoral mandate found itself divided by internal rivalry.
For grassroots workers, such conflicts create a particularly difficult situation. They campaign for the party, defend its leadership and persuade voters to support its candidates. Yet when senior leaders fall out, workers must confront confused supporters, hostile opponents and uncertainty about the organisation’s future.
The historical record does not prove that the Abdullah family abandoned every worker during these episodes. But the repeated upheavals raise an important question about whether the party has built an organisation strong enough to protect its cadre from the consequences of leadership rivalries.
1990: When democratic politics collapsed
The dismissal of Farooq Abdullah’s government in 1990 and the imposition of central rule occurred amid escalating militancy and a profound security crisis. The period saw widespread violence, the breakdown of normal political activity and the mass displacement of Kashmiri pandits.
This was a tragedy of immense proportions, and responsibility must be examined in its full historical context, including Pakistan-backed militancy, the actions of armed groups and the failures of political and security institutions.
Yet the period also raises an unavoidable question about political accountability. When democratic politics becomes impossible, ordinary citizens and political workers bear consequences that leaders cannot measure merely through the loss of office.
The criticism directed at political leadership during such crises concerns its ability to preserve public confidence, protect citizens and maintain a credible connection with the people. Political legacies must be judged not only by the power their leaders exercised, but also by how institutions and society fared during their most difficult years.
The present crisis: Workers and regions demand answers
The current cabinet controversy has brought the National Conference’s internal contradictions into sharp focus. Senior leader Mubarak Gul publicly expressed disappointment after being excluded from the cabinet, while supporters protested at the party headquarters. Abdul Majid Larmi also voiced hurt over his exclusion. Farooq Abdullah subsequently appointed Gul as the party’s general secretary.
These developments show that even within the ruling party, ministerial appointments can create resentment among experienced leaders.
Omar Abdullah must now manage two challenges simultaneously: dissatisfaction among party leaders and the growing political debate over regional representation. Neither can be resolved simply by invoking the family’s legacy or the party’s electoral success.
The people of Jammu are entitled to ask why the Jammu plains have lost their place in the cabinet. NC workers are entitled to ask whether years of service will be recognised through meaningful organisational participation. And the public is entitled to demand that political accommodation never takes precedence over accountable governance.
The central question is whether the party leadership sees workers as partners in a political mission or merely as a support base expected to remain loyal regardless of the decisions taken at the top.
Is this the last innings?
Calling this the last innings of the Abdullahs does not mean that their departure from politics is inevitable. The family retains political recognition, and the National Conference continues to have an established presence. Its future will depend on public confidence, governance, organisational unity and its ability to respond to a changing political environment.
But the assumption that a family’s historical importance guarantees permanent political dominance is no longer sufficient. Regional discontent, competing political forces and internal disagreements have made the NC’s position a subject of renewed scrutiny.
The BJP’s challenge to the National Conference is straightforward: prove through action that secularism means equal respect, that representation extends beyond the Valley, and that leadership entails responsibility when circumstances become difficult.
The Abdullah family must also demonstrate that the National Conference is an institution capable of functioning beyond the fortunes of a single household.
The real test of a political dynasty is not how many times its leaders occupy office, but whether the workers who sustain it are remembered when power slips away.
The cabinet reshuffle may prove manageable, or it may expose deeper organisational divisions. That remains to be seen. What is clear is that the National Conference cannot rely indefinitely on history, inherited authority or appeals to loyalty. It must answer the concerns of its regions, its workers and the people it governs.
Whether this is the last innings of the Abdullahs’ traditional political dominance will be decided by events. But the warning is unmistakable: a legacy may open the door to power; only accountability, representation and responsible leadership can sustain public trust.
(The Author is a spokesperson for the J&K BJP)
