Pack of Abdullahs? Bharat Needs No Apologists for Pakistan

Enough is enough. Farooq Abdullah’s latest remarks on Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir are not merely politically provocative; they raise a fundamental question about the responsibility that comes with occupying public office in Bharat. When a former Chief Minister and president of the National Conference suggests that Kashmiris are being saved because Pakistan keeps the Kashmir issue alive internationally, he owes the nation an explanation. Since when has a country that wages a proxy war against Bharat become the protector of the very people whose lives its terror machinery has endangered?

Addressing party workers in Baramulla, Abdullah reportedly argued that India’s intentions towards Kashmiris would not be right if Pakistan did not raise the issue internationally. He also attacked the administration headed by Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha, citing bureaucratic delays, shrinking autonomy and the inability of ordinary people to voice their grievances. These are matters that can and should be debated in a democracy. But invoking Pakistan as the supposed guardian of Kashmiri interests crosses into deeply troubling territory.

Pakistan is no saviour of Kashmir. Its record of sponsoring cross-border terrorism, nurturing separatist networks and attempting to destabilise Jammu and Kashmir is too long and bloody to be erased by political rhetoric. If Abdullah has genuine grievances against the administration, he has every democratic avenue to articulate them. Why dress up his criticism by suggesting that Pakistan’s international campaign is what protects Kashmiris? Does he seriously expect Bharatiyas to accept that a hostile neighbour deserves credit for safeguarding Indian citizens?

The contradiction becomes even more glaring when one recalls Abdullah’s own statements. He has condemned Pakistan for sponsoring terror attacks and insisted that dialogue cannot proceed while cross-border terrorism continues. He has also maintained that Jammu and Kashmir belongs to Bharat and will never become part of Pakistan. Which Farooq Abdullah should the country believe—the one who condemns Pakistan-sponsored terrorism or the one who credits Pakistan with protecting Kashmiris from India’s supposed intentions?

Political convenience cannot be a substitute for consistency. Nor can the national interest become a prop to be picked up or discarded depending on the audience.

The Abdullah family’s political legacy is inseparable from the special constitutional arrangements that prevailed in Jammu and Kashmir for decades. Article 370 and the associated provisions under Article 35A created a distinct legal framework whose consequences, including restrictions on equal rights and opportunities, were repeatedly contested. The Modi government removed the special status in August 2019. The Supreme Court subsequently upheld the constitutional validity of the abrogation in December 2023. Those who disagree with the decision remain free to argue their case, but they cannot pretend that the constitutional question remains legally unresolved.

The restoration of normal democratic politics, accountable administration and public confidence in Jammu and Kashmir is a legitimate national objective. So, too, is the right of citizens to question government failures. But criticism of New Delhi does not require borrowing Pakistan’s narrative, and defending local interests does not require portraying an adversarial state as their protector.

There is a difference between dissent and political opportunism. There is also a difference between advocating the rights of Kashmiris and lending credibility to the propaganda of a country that continues to challenge Bharat’s territorial integrity. Abdullah must explain where he draws that line.

The larger question concerns the politics of the Abdullahs and Muftis, whose parties have long occupied influential positions in Jammu and Kashmir. Their political record deserves rigorous scrutiny, particularly where claims of democratic representation collide with appeals to special privileges or rhetoric that appears to validate Pakistan’s intervention. No family, party or political dynasty is above that scrutiny. Equally, allegations of disloyalty must be established through evidence, not merely asserted as a substitute for argument.

Bharat is not obliged to tolerate terrorism, separatism or attempts to undermine its sovereignty. But it is a constitutional democracy, not a state that should silence political opponents simply because their statements are offensive or provocative. The government must answer questionable rhetoric with facts, constitutional authority and, wherever an actual offence is established, lawful action—not arbitrary threats of expulsion.

The message should nevertheless be unmistakable: Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of Bharat, and no political leader can claim to defend its people while casually legitimising Pakistan’s supposed benevolence. Kashmiris are Bharatiyas, not pawns awaiting salvation from Islamabad. Their future belongs to them as equal citizens of this Republic.

Farooq Abdullah is entitled to his political opinions. Bharatiyas are equally entitled to demand accountability for them. If he believes Pakistan is protecting Kashmiris, let him explain precisely how. If he has evidence of administrative injustice, let him produce it. And if his objective is to challenge the Modi government, let him do so openly, without handing Pakistan a political victory on a platter.

Bharat needs no certificates of patriotism from political dynasties—and no lectures on Kashmir’s welfare from those who would make Pakistan the indispensable voice of its people.