| News Details |
| The Crisis of Leadership in Kashmir:A Legacy of Broken Trust and Compromises | | 
Er. Shahzada Athar Ishaq Shah
Kashmir, a region with a long and tumultuous history, has been shaped by leaders who have repeatedly compromised the aspirations of its people. The National Conference (NC) under Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah and the People's Democratic Party (PDP) under Mufti Mohammad Sayeed have both played major roles in this. These parties have let down the people of Kashmir by making compromises on their ideologies and aligning with powers in Delhi for personal gains, while neglecting the region’s demand for autonomy self-determination and liberty.
Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, hailed as the "Lion of Kashmir," began his political career as a leader who championed the cause of the oppressed Kashmiri Muslims. His early years were defined by his advocacy for Kashmiri autonomy and self-rule, particularly through the establishment of the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference in 1932. However, his transition to the National Conference in 1939 marked the beginning of his ideological shift, as he sought to present himself as a secular leader, aligned with the Indian National Congress, though some see that as a change towards better ideology.
Abdullah’s departure from the aspirations of the Kashmiri people began after the partition of India in 1947. Initially, he had leaned towards a plebiscite for Kashmir, but his relationship with Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, ultimately resulted in the Instrument of Accession, whereby Jammu & Kashmir became a part of India, albeit with special status under Article 370. This move, while maintaining a degree of autonomy for Kashmir, tied its fate to the Indian Union. Critics argue that Sheikh Abdullah had entered into a Faustian bargain that allowed for the gradual erosion of Kashmir's autonomy. Through this, the Indian constitution’s laws seeped into the state, diminishing its self-governance.
In 1952, Sheikh Abdullah entered into the Delhi Agreement with Nehru, which confirmed that Jammu and Kashmir would enjoy special privileges, including its own constitution, flag, and Sadr-e-Riyasat (the state's head of government). However, this agreement was seen as another betrayal, as it effectively conceded several important powers to the central Indian government. This left the state's autonomy under threat from right-wing parties and the Indian government alike. For many Kashmiris, this agreement was a clear signal that Sheikh Abdullah was more interested in holding onto power than in securing the full autonomy of Kashmir.
Sheikh Abdullah's downfall came swiftly in 1953 when he was dismissed and imprisoned. This occurred after it was believed that he was contemplating an independent Kashmir or leaning towards Pakistan, something that alarmed Nehru and Indian leadership. Abdullah's political games and power struggles led to his isolation, with his old ally, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, replacing him. Abdullah had hoped to maintain his unchallenged rule, but his ambiguous policies led to his own ouster, reinforcing his image as a leader who compromised the aspirations of the Kashmiri people for personal power.
The 1987 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly elections represent another troubling chapter in the history of the National Conference’s broken promises. Sheikh Abdullah's son, Farooq Abdullah, took over the reins of the party after his father’s death in 1982. The elections were widely rigged to ensure the victory of the NC-Congress alliance, and this event is often seen as a turning point that shattered the people's faith in democracy.
The election fraud led to the rise of armed insurgency in Kashmir. Opposition leaders, particularly from the Muslim United Front (MUF), were harassed, and votes were manipulated. Many leaders of the MUF, who had tried to engage in peaceful political processes, turned to militancy after losing faith in the system. This betrayal by the NC directly fueled the insurgency, leaving Kashmiris disillusioned and pushing the region into decades of violence.
Mufti Mohammad Sayeed’s career, like that of Sheikh Abdullah, is marked by a series of ideological compromises. Initially a member of the Congress Party, Mufti Sayeed rose to prominence by supporting the Indian narrative on Kashmir. His tenure as India’s first Muslim Home Minister from 1989 to 1990 was marked by controversy, especially the kidnapping of his daughter, Rubaiya Sayeed, by militants. The release of militants in exchange for her freedom was seen by many as a major compromise, further undermining his credibility in Kashmir.
However, Mufti’s most significant ideological shift came in 1999 when he formed the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). This new party positioned itself as a moderate voice advocating for dialogue and reconciliation between India and Kashmir. While the PDP initially attracted support by promoting the idea of "self-rule" and peace talks, many saw this as a calculated attempt by Mufti to rebrand himself and gain political power in a post-insurgency Kashmir, however some considered it as embracing a more progressive viewpoint.
The most controversial decision in Mufti Sayeed’s political career came in 2015 when he formed a government in alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a party with a starkly different vision for Kashmir. The BJP, known for its stance on the complete integration of Kashmir into India and its opposition to Article 370, was seen as an enemy of Kashmiri aspirations for autonomy.
By entering into an alliance with the BJP, Mufti Sayeed and the PDP betrayed the trust of the Kashmiri people who had supported the PDP as an alternative to the NC and Congress. This alliance was deeply unpopular, with many Kashmiris feeling that Mufti had compromised his principles for power. The PDP’s decision to align with a party that was actively seeking to dismantle Kashmir's autonomy alienated many of its supporters and led to widespread protests in the region.
The history of the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party is one marked by compromises and unfulfilled commitments. From Sheikh Abdullah's alignment with the Indian government in 1947 to Farooq Abdullah's rigging of the 1987 elections, and Mufti Sayeed’s alliance with the BJP in 2015, these leaders have repeatedly chosen personal and political gain over the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. Their legacies are marked by broken promises and unfulfilled hopes, leaving Kashmir in a state of unresolved conflict and disillusionment.
But it’s not just the NC and PDP anymore. Several leaders who were once part of these parties have broken away to form their own factions, now serving as proxies for the central government. These newer parties and leaders are simply a continuation of the unfulfilled promises we’ve witnessed for decades, who are now aligned closely with the ruling party at the Centre, further deepening the manipulation and erosion of local authority.
These parties—both old and new—claim they will restore Article 370, but this is nothing more than political theatre. They know full well that the constitutional amendment that removed our special status cannot easily be reversed. Yet they continue to make empty promises, preying on the hopes of the people. Their claims are hollow, designed to exploit our pain and frustrations for their own electoral gain.
Moreover, these leaders have not been courageous enough to speak for the voiceless in Kashmir. The real issues—unemployment, lack of development, and the suppression of civil liberties—are often ignored. The common people are left in a state of fear, unable to raise their voices against the injustices they face daily. These parties prefer to stay silent on these matters because addressing them would mean going against the powers that be, something they are unwilling to do.
What Kashmir needs now is true leadership—individuals who will advocate for the rights of the people, not for personal or political gain. We need leaders who have the courage to speak about the suppressed issues, those that common people cannot discuss openly due to fear. This suppression cannot continue if we are ever to see lasting peace and prosperity. The graveyard silence that currently pervades our land is not peace. Real peace comes from justice, equality, and the freedom to express our desires for a better future. We deserve leaders who will fight for this, not just for their next electoral win.
(Feedback:- [email protected])
(Disclaimer: The views, observations and opinions expressed in above write up of Scoop News are strictly author's own. Scoop News does not take any onus or liability for the veracity, accuracy, validity, completeness, suitability of any of information in the above given write up. The information, facts or figures appearing in the write up in no way manifest the position, standpoint or stance of Scoop News and the Scoop News does not assume any encumbrance or answerability of the same. All disputes are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of competent Courts and Forums in Jammu City Only)
Editor
Scoop News,(scoopnews.in)..... |
| |
|
|
Share this Story |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|