History, Conflict and Leadership Failures Tell Another Story
By Basharat Hijazi
Is Pakistan a saviour of Kashmiris, as Farooq Abdullah’s recent remarks suggest, or has its role in the conflict also contributed to decades of suffering, insecurity and lost opportunities?
The question deserves a serious answer, not another ceremonial performance of political slogans dressed up as statesmanship.
Farooq Abdullah’s portrayal of Pakistan as a protector, coupled with his warning that Kashmiris risk losing their identity unless they stand up to New Delhi, revives a familiar style of politics. It places confrontation and existential anxieties at the centre of public debate, while the everyday concerns of ordinary Kashmiris are politely pushed offstage. Apparently, jobs, schools, hospitals and security can wait while leaders once again audition for the role of national conscience.
Kashmiris have every right to defend their identity, question government policies and demand constitutional rights. But they must also ask whether the leaders who repeatedly invoke these concerns are offering a credible path towards peace, prosperity and accountable governance—or merely recycling political narratives that have kept the region trapped in uncertainty, because nothing says “responsible leadership” quite like reopening old wounds without offering a remedy.
The people of Kashmir deserve better than a politics that asks them to remain perpetually agitated while leaving their practical expectations unmet. Permanent agitation may be excellent for speeches; it is rather less useful for building a future.
Pakistan’s Record Cannot Be Ignored
The history of Jammu and Kashmir since 1947 makes any uncomplicated portrayal of Pakistan as a saviour difficult to sustain.
In October 1947, tribal raiders backed by Pakistan invaded Jammu and Kashmir. Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession to India on October 26, following the invasion. India accepted the accession and sent troops to repel the raiders.
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, Farooq Abdullah’s father, subsequently became a prominent supporter of accession to India and opposed Pakistan’s attempt to bring Jammu and Kashmir under its control.
Pakistan’s involvement in the Kashmir dispute has since included wars, cross-border hostilities and decades of terrorist violence. Indian authorities have repeatedly accused Pakistan of supporting armed groups operating in Jammu and Kashmir, allegations Pakistan has denied or disputed.
The consequences for Kashmiris have been devastating. Civilians have suffered, political workers have been targeted, and Kashmiri Pandits were driven from their homes during the eruption of terrorism. Families have endured displacement, bereavement, insecurity and prolonged disruption. Young people have grown up amid uncertainty, with education, employment and economic opportunities affected by recurring instability.
These realities cannot simply be brushed aside when Pakistan becomes politically useful in a speech. History does not become less inconvenient merely because it interrupts a stirring political narrative.
Calling Pakistan a protector requires an honest examination of its record and of the consequences its involvement has had for ordinary Kashmiris. Political solidarity is easy to proclaim. Protecting people from violence, displacement and deprivation is a much more demanding responsibility—and, inconveniently, requires more than a microphone.
Kashmiris can question New Delhi without romanticising Pakistan. They can defend their identity without accepting that Pakistan necessarily represents their interests. Their political judgement must remain their own, rather than being outsourced to whichever leader delivers the most dramatic warning.
The Dangerous Politics of Soft Separatism
The more troubling aspect of Farooq Abdullah’s remarks is the political message that such rhetoric can convey, particularly to young Kashmiris.
For decades, some established political leaders have invoked resistance, identity and the threat of domination as recurring themes in Kashmir’s political discourse. There is a legitimate place for peaceful opposition, constitutional debate and criticism of government policy. The problem arises when emotionally charged rhetoric encourages confrontation without providing a clear, practical and peaceful route towards resolving grievances.
Such language can blur the distinction between defending democratic rights and glorifying resistance for political effect. It can also create the impression that confrontation itself is evidence of political commitment, while compromise, institution-building and administrative performance are somehow secondary—as though functioning governance were an embarrassing concession to reality.
This is a dangerous message to send to a generation already anxious about employment, education and its future.
Political leaders must understand that words carry consequences. Young people may hear a call for resistance as an invitation to take risks that those delivering speeches will never personally bear. When tensions rise, it is ordinary families—not the political elite—who face the greatest danger of losing their children, livelihoods and sense of security. The speechmakers, one suspects, will remain safely above the consequences they so generously distribute.
Kashmir has experienced enough violence to understand that the language of confrontation is not cost-free. Its leaders should be encouraging young people to question authority through peaceful democratic means, pursue their ambitions and build a future in which political disagreement does not threaten their lives or opportunities.
The children of poor families should not become instruments in the political calculations of established leaders. Their education, safety and future deserve greater consideration than the immediate impact of a provocative speech. Political theatre is a poor substitute for protecting someone’s child.
Have Kashmir’s Political Leaders Learnt the Lessons of Terrorism?
The experience of terrorism should have taught every political leader in Kashmir a fundamental lesson: violence destroys far more than it promises to resolve.
It damages families, weakens institutions, discourages investment and deprives young people of opportunities that cannot easily be recovered. Its consequences can continue for generations, long after the immediate confrontation has ended.
Conflicts across the world offer similar warnings. Ordinary citizens bear the heaviest burdens of prolonged violence. Poor families struggle to rebuild their lives, children lose educational opportunities, and economies are diverted from development towards survival. Political leaders may continue to make speeches, but the suffering is borne by people who have little control over the decisions that shape their lives. It is a remarkably convenient arrangement for those who confuse public anguish with political relevance.
Kashmir’s own experience should be enough to discourage any politics that treats confrontation as an end in itself.
The responsibility of leadership is to show people a path towards peace, harmony and dignity. It is to resolve disagreements through dialogue, defend rights through lawful and democratic means, and ensure that young people see a future beyond political agitation.
Peace should not be portrayed as surrender, nor should peaceful democratic engagement be mistaken for weakness. A society can defend its identity and challenge government decisions without encouraging another generation to experience the devastation of violence.
The National Conference Must Confront Its Own History
Pakistan’s role in the conflict does not absolve Kashmir’s regional political leadership of responsibility for its own decisions.
The 1987 Assembly election remains a defining episode in Jammu and Kashmir’s political history. The National Conference and Congress contested the election in an alliance, while the Muslim United Front emerged as a significant challenger. Allegations of electoral manipulation damaged public confidence in the democratic process.
The election was not the sole cause of the insurgency that followed. Pakistan’s support for armed groups and wider regional developments were also important factors. Nevertheless, the damage to democratic credibility contributed to a period whose consequences Kashmir continues to confront.
The episode demonstrates why political leaders must protect democratic institutions rather than take public trust for granted. When people lose confidence in peaceful political participation, the consequences can extend far beyond one election.
The National Conference also suffered from terrorist violence, with its workers and political representatives among those targeted. That experience makes unqualified praise of Pakistan especially difficult to reconcile with the party’s own history. Selective memory may be useful in a speech, but it is a poor foundation for public trust.
Farooq Abdullah should be able to discuss Pakistan’s role, his party’s experience and Kashmir’s political past without selecting only those parts of history that suit the argument of the moment.
The people deserve an honest account of the mistakes, external interventions and political failures that contributed to Kashmir’s prolonged turmoil. No party should be permitted to claim permanent ownership of the region’s aspirations merely because it has occupied an influential place in its history. Political inheritance is not a lifetime exemption from accountability.
Political Grievances Cannot Excuse Failed Governance
Omar Abdullah’s government must be judged by its performance, just as the Union Government must answer for its policies and decisions.
The dispute over Jammu and Kashmir’s Union Territory status and the division of powers between the elected government and the Lieutenant Governor raises important constitutional questions. The elected administration needs sufficient authority to fulfil its mandate, and the Union Government should explain and justify the limitations imposed on it.
But these disputes cannot become a blanket explanation for every administrative shortcoming. Constitutional friction may explain some failures; it cannot magically absorb all of them.
Kashmiris want employment opportunities, transparent recruitment, functioning hospitals, better schools, efficient public offices and reliable public services. They want development projects completed and grievances resolved without unnecessary delays. These are not trivial demands that can be postponed until every constitutional dispute is settled.
The Omar Abdullah government should clearly identify which commitments are obstructed by limitations on its authority and which fall within its own administrative responsibilities. It should publish measurable targets, explain delays and demonstrate what it has achieved.
The Union Government, meanwhile, must be accountable for its own decisions and commitments.
This is where the rhetoric of established political leaders deserves particular scrutiny. When questions arise about governance, invoking New Delhi, identity and resistance can shift the debate away from immediate failures. Whether or not that is the intention, the public must not allow constitutional grievances to eclipse the performance of those in office. A government cannot keep pointing at a larger villain every time someone asks whether it has done its own job.
A government must defend people’s rights and deliver public services. One responsibility cannot replace the other.
POK Also Deserves an Honest Assessment
Developments in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) provide another reason to examine political claims against the realities of ordinary people’s lives.
Protests there during 2026 brought economic hardship and governance concerns into sharp focus. Demonstrators raised issues involving electricity costs, subsidised flour and political representation. The unrest escalated into serious clashes, with reports of arrests and a security crackdown. Allegations of excessive force warrant impartial investigation.
These developments raise a pertinent question for anyone who portrays Pakistan as the natural protector of Kashmiris: what does protection mean if residents must protest to secure affordable essentials and demand a more responsive government? Perhaps protection, in this version, means being defended in speeches while being left to fend for oneself in daily life.
The political aspirations of POK’s residents are diverse, and it would be wrong to assume that they all share a single position on their future. Their demands for economic relief, dignity and effective governance nevertheless deserve attention.
The larger point is straightforward. A government or political movement cannot establish its credentials merely by claiming to represent Kashmiris. Its conduct, policies and treatment of the people must also be examined.
Political slogans cannot substitute for economic security, representative institutions or accountable administration. Nor can a flattering label turn administrative neglect into benevolence.
Kashmir Needs Leaders Who Build Peace and Deliver Results
Instead of encouraging confrontation and emboldening young people for resistance without adequately addressing its consequences, Kashmir’s political leaders should have learnt the lessons of terrorism by now. They should recognise that the region has already paid an enormous price for prolonged conflict and that its young people deserve the chance to live, learn and prosper in peace.
Their responsibility is to show their own people a path towards harmony, stability and democratic participation. They should encourage the youth to pursue education, develop professional skills, establish businesses and participate in public life without fear. They should channel public anger into peaceful demands, strengthen institutions and resolve disagreements through dialogue.
At the same time, they must provide the good governance that people expect from those elected to represent them.
That means transparent recruitment, accountable spending, better healthcare, quality education, economic development and a serious response to public grievances. It also means giving citizens clear explanations when promises remain unfulfilled.
The public, in turn, should demand a report card from every political party and representative. What promises have been delivered? What remains incomplete? How have public resources been used? What concrete proposals are being offered for the future?
Political loyalty should never require people to overlook poor performance. Historical contributions deserve recognition, but they do not entitle anyone to permanent public trust. A party is not a sacred institution simply because it has a long memory and an even longer list of grievances.
Kashmir needs leaders who can defend its rights without exploiting its anxieties, criticise government policies without glorifying confrontation, and discuss its political future without allowing everyday governance to become an afterthought.
The Final Question: Saviour or Destroyer?
Farooq Abdullah is entitled to criticise New Delhi and express his political views. But Kashmiris are equally entitled to examine his claims against history and ask whether the rhetoric of resistance offers anything meaningful to the next generation.
Pakistan’s role in the conflict deserves honest scrutiny. The National Conference and Congress must confront their historical decisions. Omar Abdullah’s government must demonstrate results, while the Union Government must justify its policies and honour its commitments.
No political actor should be allowed to use another’s failures as an excuse to escape scrutiny. Accountability is not a relay race in which every leader simply passes the blame to the next one.
The question of whether Pakistan has acted as a saviour or a destroyer cannot be settled by a slogan. It must be examined through the historical record, the consequences of conflict and the actual interests of Kashmir’s people. The same standard must apply to every leader who claims to speak in their name.
Kashmiris do not need political guardians who keep them dependent on inherited grievances. They need leaders who give them the confidence, opportunity and freedom to shape their own future.
The time has come to move beyond soft separatist rhetoric, permanent confrontation and politics built around fear. Kashmir deserves peace without surrendering its rights, democratic opposition without violence, and governance that meets the expectations of its people.
The true measure of a leader is not how forcefully he invokes Kashmir’s identity or how dramatically he warns against its enemies. It is whether he helps protect its people, strengthen its institutions and create a future in which its children can live with dignity, security and hope.
Kashmir has heard enough promises of protection. It is time for its people to demand peace, accountability and results.
