Beyond Regional Regimentation: Equitable Development and the Political Fallacy of Bifurcation

Irshad Ahmad Bhat (Research Scholar, Politics and Governance)

Harmonious living through equitable development remains a fundamental prerequisite for sustainable peace, political stability, and social cohesion in Jammu and Kashmir .The region’s complex socio-political landscape, shaped by historical legacies, geopolitical contestations, identity politics, and uneven development, has often been interpreted through narrowly framed regional lenses.These interpretations have encouraged regional regimentation and political polarization, which in turn have weakened collective political will and distorted developmental priorities. In such a context, political rhetoric advocating bifurcation or political fragmentation are frequently presented as administrative solutions; however, these approaches overlook structural realities and risk aggravating existing faultlines. A unified and inclusive developmental approach, rather than territorial or political fragmentation, offers a more viable path toward long term stability and equitable growth in J&K.

Stein Rokkan conceptualised regionalism as a center-periphery dynamic wherein peripheral regions articulate demands stemming from political and economic marginalisation by centralised authorities. Michael Keating posited that regionalism can operate as a democratic catalyst for decentralisation or as a destabilising element when exploited for political mobilisation. Benedict Anderson’s concept of \”imagined communities\” manifests how politicised identity constructs can transform political allegiances beyond institutional boundaries. In Jammu and Kashmir,regionalism has progressively transformed from a democratic articulation of local demands to a divisive political instrument wherein regional identity is instrumentalised as a means of competition rather than collaboration. Political polarization has intensified this transformation by narrowing the space for dialogue and consensus.This polarisation undermines deliberative politics and diminishes institutional credibility by substituting logical conversation with adversarial narratives. In Jammu and Kashmir,polarisation along geographic,cultural,religious,and socio-economic dimensions, results in fragmented political perceptions where each region is perceived as an independent political entity rather than as part of a unified civic political culture.This undermines integrated governance and transforms development into a contested political resource rather than a collective social good.

 Empirical developmental indicators express persistent regional disparities across J&K. The Kashmir Valley’s economy, historically dependent on tourism, horticulture, and artisanal industries, has remained structurally vulnerable to political instability, terrorism and disruptions and thereby, constraining private investment and employment generation particularly after militancy erupts. Jammu’s economy, anchored in services, trade, and other allied economic activities, experienced relatively greater institutional continuity.The divergent growth trajectories engendered feelings of marginalisation, sometimes articulated through regionalist discourse; nonetheless, their roots typically lie in governance shortcomings and policy inequities rather than insurmountable identity differences. Social and infrastructural indicators manifest underlying structural disparities. Access to healthcare, higher education, internet connectivity, transportation networks, and public service delivery is inconsistent among various areas and subregions. Backward Peripheral and remote areas particularly in border and mountainous zones, constantly experience infrastructural deprivation. Development discourse must be comprehended as the expansion of substantive freedoms rather than mere economic growth.

J&K elucidates that regional dissatisfaction is predominantly developmental, arising from unequal access to resources and opportunities rather than cultural or civilisational conflict. The strategic significance of Jammu and Kashmir further complicates these relationships. The region holds a pivotal geopolitical position, next to nuclear-armed nations and entrenched in enduring territorial conflicts. Cross-border terrorism, infiltration, and proxy warfare have shaped its security environment for decades, placing extraordinary pressure on governance institutions and development processes. This securitised environment not only limited economic activity but also influenced political narratives, rendering governance inextricable from national security imperatives. The ongoing prevalence of cross-border terrorism has redirected resources, institutional focus, and policy emphasis from long-term developmental strategies to short-term stability management, thus exacerbating structural underdevelopment across several sectors.

Within the geopolitical context, Pakistan’s ideological narrative warfare rooted in the Two-Nation Theory continues to play a disruptor role in shaping regional instability. Initially envisioned as a civilisational dichotomy between religious identities, it transformed into a strategic propaganda tool employed to justify political meddling, radicalisation, transnational terrorism, and information warfare in the region. Contemporary hybrid warfare and narrative conflict exemplify the utilisation of ideological narratives as instruments to manipulate public perception and thereby undermine the legitimacy of governmental institutions, and disrupt social cohesion. In Jammu and Kashmir, this shows up in campaigns of false information, psychological operations and symbolic mobilisation that aim to make internal differences worse and make institutions less legitimate.

 Regional polarisation and internal disintegration make it easy for outside groups to get involved in politics which shows that national security depends on political unity and social cohesiveness within the country.

Post-2019 developments in J&K mark a significant shift in the developmental trajectory of the region. Large-scale infrastructural investments have been undertaken in road connectivity, tunnel projects, power generation, digital infrastructure, healthcare expansion, and educational institutions. Major transport corridors, rural connectivity programs, and urban infrastructure projects substantially reduced physical isolation and logistical constraints. These interventions have addressed long-standing infrastructural deficits to a significant extent particularly in border areas and remote regions that were historically excluded from development planning. From a development economics perspective, these investments represent structural capacity-building rather than symbolic governance, strengthening the material foundations of integration and economic participation.

But even after infrastructure upgradation,political elites continued to reinforce regional divides through competing identity politics and instrumentalised narratives. Elite theory,as explained by people like Vilfredo Pareto and C. Wright Mills, shows how political elites often use societal differences to gain power and get people to vote. In J&K, regional complaints are often made worse not to fix problems but to gain political power. This polarisation caused by elites turns real developmental issues into battles over identity, which weakens the basic underpinnings of fair development and social cohesiveness. Within this polarized political climate,mainstream politicians advocating bifurcation are often framed as solutions to governance inefficiencies and regional dissatisfaction. However, political theory and comparative governance studies suggest that fragmentation rarely resolves structural inequalities. Administrative bifurcation is fraught with the risks  to duplication of institutions,fiscal fragmentation, coordination failures and ultimately causes governance inefficiencies. Smaller administrative units often lack the fiscal and institutional capacity to independently sustain large-scale development projects, making them more dependent on external transfers and vulnerable to economic shocks.In economies like J&K’s that are connected and depend on each other ,territorial fragmentation makes it harder for workers to move around,for supply chains to work, and for markets to come together. This makes the economy more vulnerable instead of stronger. Bifurcation aligns  with prevalent socio-political hazards. Making regional differences official makes identification borders more clear and turns social variety into political divisions. This approach limits the building of a collective political identity and erodes inclusive citizenship.Territorial fragmentation creates and intensifies new conflicts over resources, fiscal distributions, and administrative boundaries, exacerbating divisions rather than resolving pre existing ones.In a geopolitically sensitive area like J&K such fragmentation threatens to destabilise social cohesion and exacerbate external vulnerabilities. A more sustainable alternative exists in decentralised integration instead of fragmentation.

Enhancing local governance structures, empowering grassroots administrative entities, and executing region-specific development programs can meet local demands while preserving political cohesion.Polycentric governance approaches improve efficiency, accountability, and responsiveness while maintaining institutional coherence. This allows for contextual governance without political disintegration.

Over the past few years , Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed a significant consolidation of internal security as demonstrated by a constant decline in bloodshed, the methodical dismantling of terrorist infrastructure,and an almost total cessation of local militant recruitment. These trends indicate a transition from high-intensity violence to a more stable, low-violence security environment. Simultaneously, UT had gradual advancements in growth, particularly in the expansion of physical infrastructure and a comprehensive policy adjustment focused on administrative integration and economic normalisation. However, such stabilisation remains fragile and is in transition. The instrumentalisation of political rhetoric, driven by partisan competition or personal political capital, risks undermining deterrence credibility, public trust in institutions, and the broader security architecture. In this context, mainstream political actors carry a critical responsibility to avoid securitising narratives that may re-activate grievance structures or embolden residual violent networks of our adversary. Responsible political communication is therefore integral to preserving the hard-won security gains and sustaining the trajectory towards durable peace in Jammu and Kashmir. Harmonious life in Jammu and Kashmir crucially depends on the recognition that equitable development surpasses just economic objectives, functioning as a political, social, and security imperative. Regional regimentation and polarisation obstruct this goal by fragmenting political resolve, eroding institutional trust, and generating weaknesses that external entities exploit through narrative warfare and proxy destabilisation. Bifurcation, rather than resolving basic concerns, risks intensifying inequality, entrenching divisions, and undermining governance effectiveness. A cohesive, decentralised, and development-oriented governance framework rooted in inclusivity, justice, and evidence-based policy offers the most feasible route to sustained peace in Jammu and Kashmir. Transforming diversity into political capital necessitates integration rather than fragmentation, achieved through equity, dialogue, and a collective developmental vision that underscores cohesion as the cornerstone of enduring stability in the strategically sensitive and politically intricate region of Jammu and Kashmir