Culture at the crossroads: Genuine concern or a battle for influence?

Over the past couple of weeks, Jammu and Kashmir’s cultural landscape has been stirred by a familiar yet sensitive debate. Some voices—widely believed to belong to well-known figures from cultural and business circles—have renewed the demand for two separate cultural academies for Jammu and Kashmir. While the proposal is being presented as a move to strengthen cultural representation, it has also left many people wondering about the real intent behind it.
On the surface, the argument appears reasonable. Jammu and Kashmir are home to diverse languages, art forms, traditions and histories. Supporters of separate academies claim that a single, centralised institution has failed to adequately represent this diversity, and that independent academies could ensure focused attention, fair representation and better promotion of regional art and heritage.
Yet, the sudden revival of this demand has also raised uncomfortable questions. Many observers note that those leading the chorus are not newcomers to the cultural space; they are influential names who have long enjoyed access to institutions, funding and platforms. This has led to a growing perception that the issue may not be entirely about cultural welfare, but about influence, authority and access to resources—the proverbial “share of the pie.”
What is most concerning is the absence of a wider, inclusive conversation. Culture does not belong to a handful of individuals or institutions; it lives with artists, writers, performers and folk practitioners at the grassroots. Any proposal to restructure cultural bodies should ideally emerge from broad-based consultations, reflecting the voices of those who create and preserve culture, not just those who manage it.
There is also the risk that such divisions, if driven by narrow interests, could deepen regional sensitivities rather than address them. Jammu and Kashmir’s cultural strength has always rested on its diversity coexisting within a shared civilisational space. Reforms that weaken dialogue and exchange could do more harm than good.
If the call for separate academies is truly motivated by a desire to protect endangered traditions, empower neglected artists and give equal space to all regions, it deserves thoughtful and transparent consideration. But if it is largely about control, prestige and institutional power, it will only deepen public mistrust.
In the end, the real question is not whether Jammu and Kashmir need one cultural academy or two. The real issue is whether cultural institutions are serving the people they are meant to represent. Any decision must place culture above personal interests, and collective heritage above individual gain. Only then can such debates lead to meaningful reform rather than further division.