Understanding Gujjar Empowerment in Jammu and Kashmir

Leh, India Jul 25, 2026 ALN: Dr. Haseeb Drabu’s article “Kashmir: Emerging Complexities” appeared in Greater Kashmir on 16th of July 2026. It offers an analysis of the changing political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir after the constitutional and governance reforms of 2019. It acknowledges that Gujjars and Bakarwals have gained greater political visibility through reservations and affirmative action. However, the overall narrative presents their empowerment as a source of political complexity and instability rather than as a long-overdue correction of historical exclusion. This interpretation deserves a balanced response.

The political reservation, government jobs, and admission to educational institutions available to Gujjars and Bakarwals under the ST quota should never be viewed as a favour or a concession. Reservation is a constitutional mechanism designed to ensure equitable representation of communities that remained excluded from power and public institutions for generations. It is not charity extended by the State; it is their rightful share based on constitutional principles. Any discussion on reservations must therefore begin with the recognition that social justice is meant to correct historical imbalance, not to create privilege.

The article of Dr. Drabu discussed the political reservation issue. The Scheduled Tribes, Gujjars in Jammu and Kashmir received constitutional recognition as ST in 1991 that entitled the community to get Political Reservation as well. Yet, they were denied political reservation in the Legislative Assembly and other political institutions for more than thirty years by banning the delimitation process in J&K till 2028. The bill in this regard was passed by the J&K Assembly in 1998 and denied implementation of this constitutional safeguard. Political reservation for Scheduled Tribes was finally introduced only after the post-2019 constitutional changes, therefore reserving 9 seats in the Assembly for STs, enabling Gujjars and Bakarwals to participate in legislative decision-making on a more equal footing. What is portrayed today as a “new political complexity” is, in reality, the delayed implementation of a constitutional promise.

The article repeatedly associates Gujjar political participation with words such as “fragmentation,” “fault lines,” and “complexity.” Such language unintentionally suggests that the entry of historically marginalized communities into positions of influence is itself a problem. Every democracy becomes more representative when excluded communities begin participating in governance. Greater diversity in political institutions naturally produces new negotiations and competing interests, but these are signs of democratic maturity rather than democratic decline. The emergence of Gujjar leadership reflects the widening of democracy, not its weakening.

The article further discussed the extension of the Forest Rights Act to J&K as well. Another significant example of historical neglect is the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. While tribal communities across India began receiving legal recognition of their traditional forest rights from 2006 onwards, Gujjars and Bakarwals of Jammu and Kashmir remained excluded because the Act was not extended to the erstwhile State. Only after 2019 did these communities become entitled to the same legal protections enjoyed by Scheduled Tribes elsewhere in the country. Describing this as a political gain without acknowledging the years of denial presents an incomplete picture.

Any meaningful assessment of Gujjar empowerment must first acknowledge the scale of their historical exclusion. For decades, Gujjars remained one of the least represented communities in higher administration, academia, professional institutions, and policy-making despite constituting one of the largest ethnic groups in Jammu and Kashmir. Without this historical context, readers may mistakenly conclude that Gujjars have received excessive benefits instead of understanding that they are only beginning to receive opportunities that should have been available long ago.

If Gujjars are truly the “primary beneficiaries” of reservations and affirmative action policies, this claim should be reflected in their representation within major public institutions. The reality, however, tells a very different story. Kashmir University, with nearly 600 sanctioned faculty positions across its campuses, and the two campuses of the Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST Kashmir and SKUAST Jammu), together having around 700 sanctioned faculty posts, provide a revealing example. Despite the availability of 10% reservation for Scheduled Tribes since 1991, these premier institutions have virtually no faculty member from the Gujjar – Bakarwal community serving as Assistant Professor or above. This stark underrepresentation exposes the gap between the perception that Gujjars have disproportionately benefited from reservation and the actual outcomes.

The situation is equally concerning at the University of Jammu. Despite having around 500 sanctioned faculty positions across campuses and implementing the 10 percent Scheduled Tribe reservation policy since 1991, the university has witnessed only three faculty members from the Gujjar-Bakarwal community being appointed over the past three and a half decades. This is particularly striking given that Gujjars constitute nearly 17–20 percent of the population of the Jammu division. Such figures demonstrate that the constitutional guarantee of reservation has not translated into meaningful representation in higher education.

Since 1947, the Gujjar community has experienced a unique form of double marginalization in Jammu and Kashmir. In the Kashmir Valley, they are often viewed primarily as a distinct ethnic group rather than as an integral part of the broader Kashmiri society. Describing them as a “sub-ethnic” group, as the writer does, implicitly reinforces the perception that Gujjars are somehow “not Kashmiri” despite having lived in the region for centuries and contributing significantly to its economy, culture, and history. This framing distances them from the mainstream political and social discourse of Kashmir and weakens recognition of their legitimate stake in the region’s future.

In the Jammu region, however, the Gujjars are viewed through a different lens. Here, they are often perceived primarily as a Muslim community rather than as a Scheduled Tribe with distinct historical, social, and economic disadvantages. Their tribal identity, constitutional safeguards, and developmental challenges are frequently overshadowed by religious identity, making them vulnerable to communal narratives rather than being understood within the framework of social justice and affirmative action.

As a result, the Gujjars find themselves disadvantaged in both regions. In Kashmir, they are treated as outsiders to the dominant regional identity, while in Jammu, they are often reduced to a religious category. This dual perception has historically limited their political representation, educational advancement, and participation in public institutions.

What is particularly concerning is that whenever the Gujjar community secures a constitutional right—whether through Scheduled Tribe reservation, political representation, or welfare measures—these gains are frequently portrayed as excessive benefits or special favours. Their progress is measured not against the backdrop of decades of exclusion, but as though they have received disproportionate advantages. Such narratives ignore the reality that these measures are intended to correct historical inequalities and provide equal opportunities, not confer privileges.

The real question, therefore, is not why Gujjar-Bakarwals have become more visible in public life. The real question is why constitutional rights guaranteed decades ago were withheld for so long.

The empowerment of Gujjars and Bakarwals should be understood not as a source of political instability but as a milestone in India’s democratic journey. Reservation is not charity. It is not a favour bestowed by governments. It is a constitutional guarantee intended to ensure that communities historically excluded from power receive their rightful share in governance, education, and public employment.