Farooq Abdullah’s remarks on Pakistan may be reckless and deserve scrutiny, but branding him anti-national without evidence undermines democratic debate. Dissent on Kashmir, however uncomfortable, must not be confused with allegiance to Islamabad.
From warning that Pakistan is "not wearing bangles" to suggesting that Islamabad helps protect Kashmiris by keeping their cause alive internationally, Farooq Abdullah has perfected the politics of the incendiary one-liner. His remarks can be irresponsible and reckless, his theatrics exasperating, and his political record deeply contestable. But reducing him to a Pakistani sympathiser is to mistake provocation for allegiance, and Kashmir's complicated politics for a 'national-security' binary!
His latest offering, suggesting that Pakistan helps protect Kashmiris by keeping the Kashmir question alive internationally, has predictably brought down the familiar chorus of anti-nationalism. But Farooq's recent statement also demands a distinction that Indian politics increasingly struggles to make, i.e., the difference between a provocative argument about Pakistan's diplomatic role and evidence of allegiance to Pakistan. The former deserves scrutiny. The latter cannot simply be presumed.
Consider his infamous warning in May 2024, i.e., Pakistan was "not wearing bangles"; it possessed nuclear weapons, and any war could bring catastrophe upon India. The remark followed Rajnath Singh's suggestion that Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir might eventually join India. The phrase was crude, theatrical and calculated to provoke. But the argument beneath it was hardly treasonous. Abdullah was warning against military adventurism, not campaigning for Pakistan.
His position on Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) has been equally combustible. In November 2017, he declared: "PoK is in Pakistan, and will remain. J&K is in India, and will remain." While nationalists rightly regard the recovery of PoK as a just territorial objective, the statement was intolerable. For Farooq, it reflected a hard-headed argument against pretending that a disputed border could be redrawn through slogans and military bravado. One can challenge his assessment without pretending that strategic realism is synonymous with disloyalty.
Then there were the stone-pelters. During the unrest of 2017, Abdullah argued that young Kashmiris were risking their lives for the resolution of the Kashmir issue. His willingness to frame stone-pelting as political sacrifice angered those who saw it as a dangerous romanticisation of violence. Here, the criticism carries real weight. Alienation deserves explanation; violence does not deserve glorification.
Same ambiguity shadows his dealings with separatist sentiment. He has urged engagement with Hurriyat and insisted that Kashmir's political grievances cannot be wished away. Critics have interpreted such gestures as appeasement. Yet engaging separatists is not necessarily endorsing separatism.
Abdullah has repeatedly advocated greater autonomy within India, not an independent Kashmir aligned with Pakistan. That distinction is routinely lost in a national debate that too often treats every challenge to 'Delhi' as a challenge to India itself.
His fury following the Supreme Court's December 2023 judgment upholding the revocation of Article 370 was similarly unvarnished. He complained that J&K had been driven to "jahannum" (hell), by the central government. The language was unbecoming of a senior political leader, but the grievance was unmistakable - he believed the dismantling of autonomy had deepened the alienation of Kashmiris rather than secured their consent.
None of this makes Abdullah a saint, much less a politician beyond reproach. His long record in government deserves searching examination for administrative failures, political compromises, and allegations of corruption. His party cannot claim democratic credentials as a permanent exemption from accountability.
Nor can his age, lineage or rhetorical flamboyance excuse careless remarks about a neighbour whose role in Kashmir's suffering is written in blood. But neither should the charge of "anti-national" become a substitute for argument. Calling a statement irresponsible is one thing; suggesting that it proves allegiance to Pakistan is quite another. The latter requires evidence, not merely outrage.
Here lies the enduring paradox of Farooq i.e., he can be an infuriating critic of the Indian state, while remaining an advocate of Kashmir's place within India. His politics have rested on the proposition that the Union's relationship with Kashmir requires more than territorial assertion; it requires dignity, inclusion and some measure of political trust. His party's failures do not erase that argument, any more than that argument absolves his party of its failures.
The latest Pakistan remark may have been his familiar blend of frustration, theatrical flourish, and political baiting. It was also profoundly insensitive to those who have suffered from Pakistan's actions. It should be challenged, not excused. But leaping from a reckless sentence to a verdict on national allegiance is to take the easiest route through a difficult argument.
The "Idea of India" cannot mean much if it accommodates dissent only when dissent is politely phrased, politically convenient, and safely indistinguishable from the government's position.
Kashmir's democratic space depends, in part, on the ability of mainstream politicians to articulate grievances that may be uncomfortable elsewhere in the country, even when their own conduct makes that task harder.
Farooq has often squandered that opportunity through his own excesses. He can be irascible and needlessly provocative. His critics are entitled to call him out. They are not entitled to turn every provocation into proof of treachery.
Pakistan's role in Kashmir cannot be sanitised. Abdullah's rhetoric cannot be immunised from criticism. But neither can Kashmir's politics be reduced to the simplistic proposition that anyone who questions New Delhi must be playing Islamabad's game. Farooq Abdullah may repeatedly say too much. India should be careful not to infer more than his words prove.
Abdullah has repeatedly advocated greater autonomy within India, not an independent Kashmir aligned with Pakistan. That distinction is routinely lost in a national debate that too often treats every challenge to 'Delhi' as a challenge to India itself.
The writer is a former Lieutenant Governor of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry and a military veteran; Views presented are personal.