Farooq Abdullah's comments on Kashmir must be ignored
Post the announcement that Dineshwar Sharma would be the Centre’s interlocutor for dialogue in Kashmir, a series of contradictory comments has been emanating from the conflict-torn region, adding to the existing confusion. The comments are political, seeking to either support the Centre’s decision or counter it, based on the ideology of political outfits.
The separatists have spoken as expected, and rejected all offers of dialogue. It was but natural, as they have become accustomed to taking the best from the Indian state as well as money through hawala from Pakistan. But their loyalties remain with Pakistan, so on every occasion they are wont to state that we must talk to Islamabad.
They demand azadi, but fail to utter a word when Pakistan PM Shahid Khaqan Abbasi says that autonomy, not even azadi, to Kashmir is impossible and unacceptable.
However, there are indicators that the pressure from ongoing investigations by NIA and ED — which has put the second rung and the kin of the top separatist leadership behind the bars — would bring about a volte face.
It may not bring them to the negotiation table for the fear of the wrath from across the border, but may help soften their stand — and they would depute representatives from the second rung to interact.
Much confusion has also been created by Jitendra Singh, minister of state in the PMO who stated that the talks are not new and that the Centre was always engaged in dialogue with Kashmiri leaders. He was referring to the two visits to the Valley undertaken by Union home minister Rajnath Singh.
Meanwhile, Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Mehbooba Mufti has welcomed Sharma’s appointment even as she stated that azadi, as demanded by a section of the student community, is without any bias.
The most controversial and contradictory comments have been made by former Jammu and Kashmir CM and National Conference veteran Farooq Abdullah.
A seasoned politician, Abdullah has seen many ups and downs in political life, but the present, to him, is a major test. Politically, his NC leadership faces a daunting task.
In case peace is restored in the Valley, the present alliance of the PDP and the BJP would stand to gain, pushing NC into electoral wilderness. At such a time, the BJP has slowly begun making inroads into the Valley, adding to the NC’s worries.
Abdullah, who is nearing 80, is desperate. He remains an MP from a party with almost no say at the Centre.
Speaking against the government’s interlocutor could backfire in case others go along, whereas supporting Sharma is equally risky for Abdullah. Hence, there is a variety in the comments that the veteran has made.
He has claimed that borders cannot be changed, that Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Kashmir would remain with the countries that hold them today. He has also stated that all provisions and acts implemented post-1953 be withdrawn, thus demanding complete autonomy for the state.
Abdullah’s assertion is that Kashmir as an independent nation cannot survive because it is surrounded by three powerful nuclear-armed countries and, therefore, his party has never demanded it.
He retweeted the Hurriyat stating that India should hold talks with Pakistan. In fact, realistically, these are the very issues which NC would hope to raise with the interlocutor. However, rather than talking to Sharma, the party leaders are raising these concerns at a public forum.
The issues raised by Abdullah in particular need to be analysed in the political context in which he spoke. Most of his comments were made at public rallies, so neither were they disputed nor was the NC veteran asked to justify them.
Interestingly, he has conveyed that azadi is neither an option nor would it ever be one, which earned him a sharp response from the Hurriyat and led to a war of words between his son, Omar Abdullah, and the separatists.
The same Abdullah had stated last year, during the peak of the Kashmir agitation, that his party is not against the Hurriyat and would provide them full support to “take the movement for azadi to its conclusion”.
While referring to the borders, he reiterated what are seen as additional confidence-building measures between the two countries, including opening the frontier up for the two parts of Kashmir to enhance people-to-people contacts.
However, never has India or Pakistan ceded the portion held by the other. In addition, any Indian is aware that talks with Pakistan imply little, unless their deep state grants the Pakistan government the permission to move ahead. Every time talks have been planned, a terrorist act sets the clock back.
By accusing the Army chief, Abdullah knows full well he is targeting an organisation that will not dignify his assertion with a response. He has simply erased from his personal memory the fact that he was holidaying in Europe as chief minister even as Kashmiri Pandits were being massacred in his state.
Did he even care for their welfare when they moved into squalid transit camps in Jammu? Does he realise that it is only the Army which cares for the civilians, and that he and his party have done nothing (worse, they protested the setting up of a veteran colony in the Valley) for Kashmir’s citizens?
Abdullah has been struggling to bring his party out of the woods ahead of the next elections. All his comments and speeches betray a bias for the Valley, and ignore the Jammu and Ladakh regions of his state. With the PDP and BJP combine gaining ground, the NC is headed downhill.
At this juncture, Abdullah only seeks to gain limelight at the national level, and enhance local support. It is therefore best to ignore him.