Farooq, his own worst enemy

Farooq, his own worst enemy
Neerja Chowdhury

For all the reaction it has generated in different parts of the country, Farooq Abdullah's autonomy resolution is understandable at one level. Politicians do all kinds of things for their survival. Farooq perceived that the government's ongoing talks with the leaders of the All Party Hurriyat Conference through emissaries could dislodge him. The government, incidentally, had not taken him adequately into confidence on this initiative.

What is less comprehensible is his rhetoric -- that he might have become the prime minister of Pakistan had Kashmir acceded to Pakistan, and so forth. Farooq has not explained how he could have become Pakistan's prime minister. There is not one instance of a Kashmiri occupying a place of prominence in the Pakistani establishment over the last 50 years. In contrast, India has had a Kashmiri as its home minister. Hindus and Muslims have represented the state in Parliament, and they have included Farooq Abdullah's mother and now his son. Whether it is Karan Singh, Mir Qasim, M.L. Fotedar, Ghulam Nabi Azad, Saifuddin Soz, Kashmiris have held important positions in government.

While POK lives in isolation, with no leader from there being apart of the larger political movement in Pakistan, this is not the case in India. In the early eighties, Farooq became the focal point of the Third Front's politics after being dismissed. Last week he was invited to Erode by the Tamil parties which was discussing the tricky issue of a Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka.

Farooq Abdullah can blame the Centre, and there is no defence for many of the things that Delhi has done in Srinagar, but if there is someone who has no moral authority to complain about the workings of Indian democracy, it is him.

The fact is that in any election held in Jammu and Kashmir, in which members of the Abdullah family have contested, it is they who have come to power. Either it is Farooq's contention that he has been elected through rigging, or he should credit Indian democracy for bringing them to power. In more ways than one, the seeds for the last phase of militancy were sown in 1987. It was Farooq who was in power then, not the Muslim United Front.

Farooq will not be able to name a single Kashmiri leader who could sit in Islamabad and openly complain about the wrongs done by the Pakistani establishment to POK. Everyone knows that the POK would not have been able to pass the kind of autonomy resolution that was passed by the Jammu and Kashmir assembly. The POK boundaries were redrawn by executive fiat. When Zia-ul-Haq was once questioned about the separation of the Northern Areas from POK, he had replied flatly that they may have been with the so-called Azad Kashmir once but were now part of Pakistan.

Farooq has the freedom to shout from the housetops about the injustices meted out to Kashmir by Delhi and yet continue to be acceptable to the Indian establishment, and that is the way it should be. His son continues to be an important member of the government. Were Farooq to meet L.K. Advani now, in all probability the home minister would commiserate with him about his compulsions. So did Rajiv Gandhi when he was PM. He told Farooq that Delhi would understand if he spoke with one voice here and quite another in Srinagar, so as to retain his relevance in Kashmiri politics.

For all their bitter differences, it was possible for Farooq's father, Sheikh Abdullah, to come to Delhi and stay with Jawaharlal Nehru. Indira Gandhi was sent to the airport to receive him after his release. There is no Kashmiri leader on the other side who has shared that kind of a relationship with a Pakistani ruler.

While Farooq is talking about becoming prime minister, his resolution on state autonomy and his report on regional autonomy show that he wants to be the leader of only the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir. His recent actions provoked a counter reaction in the country even before it came to debate the autonomy issue. This has hurt the Kashmiri cause. No government can accept the pre-1953 position, which would amount to creating a nation within a nation. The Cabinet has rightly made a distinction between autonomy and the pre-1953 position, a view endorsed by a large section of political opinion.

Farooq was in a position to have helped evolve a consensus on a devolution package for all the Indian states, making autonomy an instrument of greater integration and yet giving people a bigger say in the management of their affairs. That would have given him a larger role in national politics.

If at all it is possible for Farooq to realise his dream of becoming prime minister, it is more likely to happen in India than in Pakistan. In the past he had talked about becoming the president of the Republic. Unfortunately, what goes against him is his own volatility and unpredictability.