I believe few issues in Jammu & Kashmir reflect the gap between public sentiment and governance reality as sharply as the demand for the return of hydropower projects. On the surface, the argument is compelling—why should a region rich in hydropower continue to face shortages while its resources are controlled elsewhere? But as I see it, the reality is far more complex.
Jammu & Kashmir today continues to grapple with a persistent power crisis. Despite having immense hydropower potential, the region remains dependent on external procurement. Demand fluctuates between 2800–3200 MW, while availability—despite imports—hovers around 2400–2800 MW. This leaves a recurring shortfall of 15–25%, affecting households, businesses, agriculture, and overall economic activity.
It is in this context that the renewed push in the Assembly for reclaiming hydropower projects has gained traction. I understand the emotional resonance of this demand. It speaks to a broader sense of ownership, fairness, and regional rights. But sentiment alone cannot resolve structural challenges.
To understand where we stand today, I find it essential to revisit how these projects came under external control. Over the years, several major hydropower assets were transferred to NHPC Limited. These decisions were not arbitrary. They were shaped by the realities of the time—limited financial capacity, lack of technical expertise, and institutional constraints within the region.
NHPC’s involvement ensured that these projects were actually built and became operational. However, the agreements also meant that control, revenue, and operational authority largely remained outside Jammu & Kashmir. Over time, this has created a perception—and in many ways a reality—of imbalance.
What often gets overlooked in public discourse is the legal framework governing these projects. The agreements with NHPC are binding contracts. They define ownership, revenue sharing, and operational control over long durations.
In my view, this is where political messaging often diverges from legal reality. Reclaiming these projects is not a matter of passing a resolution or introducing a bill. It would require renegotiation, arbitration, or even prolonged litigation. Compensation for investments, settlement of liabilities, and future revenue claims would all come into play.
Any unilateral move could trigger serious legal consequences. This is not a simple administrative correction—it is a complex legal process.
Even if legal hurdles were addressed, the financial implications remain daunting. Hydropower infrastructure requires massive investment, and over the years NHPC has invested thousands of crores into these projects.
If Jammu & Kashmir were to reclaim them, it would likely involve buying out stakes, taking over operational costs, and ensuring uninterrupted technical performance. I must ask: does the region currently have the financial strength to absorb such a transition?
Without a credible financial roadmap, even a favourable legal outcome could become difficult to execute.
Another reality I cannot ignore is the role of the central government. NHPC is a central public sector enterprise, and any restructuring would require approval from New Delhi.
Given the current political framework, Jammu & Kashmir’s negotiating leverage is limited. Even if the Assembly passes a bill, its implementation would depend on political alignment, negotiation capacity, and the Centre’s willingness to engage.
This is a critical constraint that cannot be wished away.
The introduction of a bill in the Assembly certainly brings visibility to the issue. But as I see it, governance begins where legislation ends.
Will such a bill pass in its original form? Even if it does, can it override existing agreements? Does it have enforceability beyond political signaling? These are questions that demand honest answers.
We have seen in the past that legislative intent does not always translate into execution.
At its core, this issue raises a deeper question for me: do we currently have the institutional capacity to carry this through?
Reclaiming hydropower projects is not a single decision. It is a multi-layered process requiring legal strategy, financial planning, administrative preparedness, and sustained engagement with the Centre. Each of these stages demands not just intent, but capability.
At present, these elements do not appear fully aligned.
This brings me to what I consider the central dilemma—symbolism versus substantive outcomes.
Raising the issue undoubtedly resonates with the public. It reinforces narratives of regional rights and resource control. But without a clear execution pathway, such moves risk remaining symbolic.
And symbolism without delivery carries consequences—public disillusionment, erosion of trust, and growing skepticism toward governance processes. Jammu & Kashmir has seen this pattern before.
If this demand is to move beyond rhetoric, I believe a structured approach is essential.
First, there must be a transparent review of existing agreements with NHPC. Second, a phased negotiation strategy should be explored—whether through enhanced revenue sharing, joint control, or gradual transfer models. Third, financial planning must be realistic and clearly articulated. Fourth, engagement with the Centre has to be strategic, not rhetorical. Finally, institutional capacity within the region must be strengthened to manage such assets efficiently.
Only then can aspiration translate into actionable policy.
Given the current constraints, I find it unlikely that hydropower projects will be returned in the immediate future. This does not invalidate the demand—it simply reflects the gap between what is desirable and what is feasible.
In the near term, the issue is likely to remain part of political discourse, serving as a narrative for public positioning, with limited policy-level progress.
The demand to reclaim Jammu & Kashmir’s hydropower projects is rooted in legitimate concerns about resource ownership and economic justice. I fully recognize its emotional and political significance.
However, governance operates within constraints—legal, financial, and political. At present, these constraints are substantial.
The real test, in my view, is not in raising the demand, but in demonstrating the ability to deliver it. Without a clear roadmap, political alignment, and institutional preparedness, the issue risks becoming another unfulfilled promise.
The people of Jammu & Kashmir deserve more than debate and declarations. They deserve practical, sustainable solutions to a crisis that affects their daily lives.
(The author is a Political Analyst, national TV debater, and columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].)
