BJP Leader Alleges Kashmiri Muslims Not Loyal to Country

 Srinagar: Former minister and senior BJP leader Sham Lal Sharma has once again ignited a political storm in Jammu and Kashmir by reiterating his controversial call for carving out Jammu as a separate state. Escalating his rhetoric, Sharma claimed on Monday that the people of the Kashmir Valley “are not loyal to the country,” a remark that is already drawing sharp criticism and is expected to deepen political tensions in the region.

Speaking to reporters, Sharma argued that persistent unrest in the Valley has repeatedly disrupted what he described as the “naturally peaceful” environment of Jammu. According to him, the region would flourish economically, socially, and administratively if separated from Kashmir. He insisted that Jammu possesses far greater natural and economic resources, asserting that the Valley relies primarily on tourism, while Jammu contributes nearly 80 percent of the electricity generated in the Union Territory and maintains a stronger agricultural base.

Sharma extended his critique to the financial sector as well, alleging that 80 percent of deposits in J&K Bank originate from Jammu. He further claimed that of the nearly ₹20,000 crore in non performing assets, ₹18,000 crore are linked to Kashmir, accusing people in the Valley of being responsible for the losses.

Reaffirming his demand for a separate Jammu state, Sharma said he was confident that Jammu would emerge as one of the most progressive and peaceful states in the country if granted statehood. He also pressed for the proposed National Law University to be established in Jammu rather than the Valley, arguing that the institution is funded by the Centre and should therefore be located where it would “benefit the deserving region.”

Sharma maintained that Jammu has faced decades of discrimination and insisted that his statements reflect his personal views. Yet he expressed certainty that the idea of a separate Jammu state would eventually gain widespread acceptance. He recalled raising the same demand in 2010, when he was a cabinet minister in the NC–Congress coalition government, arguing even then that violence in Kashmir was harming Jammu’s stability.

His revived call for statehood has triggered a wave of condemnation across the political spectrum. Leaders from both the ruling coalition and the opposition have rejected the proposal outright. Even within the BJP, Sharma’s own party, the leadership swiftly distanced itself from his remarks, stressing that his statements do not represent the party’s official position.

Sharma, who represents the Jammu North constituency, has long argued that Jammu has suffered at the hands of “Kashmir based rulers.” He has repeatedly demanded equitable development, fair political representation, and balanced governance. At times, he has even hinted at the need for a Hindu chief minister to correct what he views as a structural imbalance in the region’s political landscape.

The National Conference (NC), which heads the current government under Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, responded with particular force. NC president and former chief minister Farooq Abdullah dismissed the idea of separating Jammu as “absurd,” insisting that Jammu and Kashmir are historically and culturally inseparable. Omar Abdullah went further, accusing the BJP of having “ruined” Ladakh after its bifurcation and warning that dividing Jammu would repeat the same mistakes. He suggested that Sharma’s proposal risks deepening communal divides and pointed to ongoing protests in Ladakh as a cautionary example.

Other NC leaders echoed this sentiment. Javed Ahmad Rana, senior NC figure and Minister for Jal Shakti, Forest and Tribal Affairs, called the proposal “imaginary” and “unviable.” He noted that neither the Pir Panjal region nor the Chenab Valley—both Muslim majority areas within Jammu division—support such a demand. He argued that a separate Jammu state would exclude these regions and asserted that “a minority cannot rule a majority,” even suggesting that Ladakh should be reunited with Jammu and Kashmir instead.

The Congress also moved quickly to clarify its position. J&K Congress president Tariq Karra rejected comments made by senior leader Chaudhary Lal Singh, stressing that Singh’s remarks were personal and not endorsed by the party. Karra reaffirmed the Congress’s commitment to the unity of Jammu and Kashmir and to restoring full statehood to the entire Union Territory.

Sharma’s remarks have reopened long standing regional grievances that have simmered since the 2019 reorganisation of the former state, when Article 370 was revoked and J&K was split into the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. While some groups have occasionally floated concepts like “Jammu Pradesh” or “Duggar Desh,” mainstream political parties continue to prioritise the restoration of full statehood to the unified territory rather than further division. Even within the BJP, Sharma’s demand remains a fringe position.

The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) offered one of the strongest rebuttals. PDP president and former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti condemned Sharma’s proposal as rooted in religious considerations tied to Jammu’s Hindu majority character. She warned that dividing the region along communal lines would undermine the secular foundations on which Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India in 1947, rejecting Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s two nation theory. According to her, such a move would retroactively validate the idea that Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist within a single political unit. She accused right wing groups—including the BJP, RSS, and Bajrang Dal—of using Jammu and Kashmir as a “laboratory” for divisive experiments that could later be replicated elsewhere in the country.

As the debate intensifies, Sharma’s remarks have once again exposed the deep and complex regional, political, and communal fault lines that continue to shape the politics of J&K.