What National Conference doesn’t tell you about abrogation of Article 370

By Arsalan Ahad Reshi*  

The National Conference (NC) has made a habit of accusing the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) of responsibility for the abrogation of Article 370. Whenever PDP leaders raise questions in or outside the Assembly, NC’s stock reply is: “You are responsible for abrogation of Article 370.” Their second line of attack is: “You allied with BJP and brought them into Jammu and Kashmir.” But is it true that PDP introduced BJP into the state? That claim is little more than a political fabrication.

Before NC levels such charges, it should recall when the BJP first established its office in Srinagar and how many of its workers were killed in the 1990s. NC often invokes the sacrifices of its own cadre, but it rarely admits where its leadership was during those years—whether standing with its workers in Kashmir or living comfortably abroad. This silence is deliberate, because acknowledging it would puncture the emotional narrative NC sells to the public.

Consider 1999, when Omar Abdullah held the post of Minister of State in the BJP-led NDA government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee. He served first in Commerce and later as Minister of State for External Affairs. This fact is carefully hidden behind the rhetoric of the PDP–BJP alliance. In reality, NC was the first ally of the BJP. Omar Abdullah even turned on his colleague Saifuddin Soz when Soz voted against the Vajpayee government, contributing to its fall. Soz chose loyalty to conscience over power, but Omar’s anger revealed NC’s priorities.

The backstory of Omar Abdullah’s entry into Vajpayee’s cabinet is revealing. L.K. Advani, then Deputy Prime Minister, wrote in his memoir that Farooq Abdullah came to negotiate with the NDA carrying the autonomy resolution. After lengthy discussion, he was asked whether he wanted the resolution passed or a ministry for his son. Farooq chose the ministry, abandoning autonomy. That is how Omar Abdullah became a minister in the Vajpayee government. This truth is what NC conceals behind its attacks on PDP.

Even in 2014, NC leaders were accused by their own colleagues of offering BJP the Chief Minister’s post in exchange for a Deputy Chief Ministership. The party’s focus has always been power. In the 1990s, when the Centre sought to restore democracy after rigged elections, Farooq Abdullah rushed back from London to prevent others from taking the Chief Minister’s chair. He returned again in 1996 when elections were finally held. Had he truly cared for the people, he would have allowed the Centre’s dialogue process to proceed. Instead, he chose power over principle.

NC itself once admitted during election rallies that it was the “lesser evil,” asking forgiveness for past misdeeds and promising to change. Yet today it claims moral superiority. This contradiction exposes its opportunism. The party has long thrived on selling illusions to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

History also raises uncomfortable questions. When Sheikh Abdullah signed the 1975 accord, NC insists he was unaware of developments while in jail. But political writers record that he was kept informed and consulted. His supporters blame Bakshi, Sadiq, Mir Qasim, and Mirza Afzal Beg, but the truth is more complex. Sheikh Abdullah’s early struggle against Dogra rule is undeniable, but his later compromises are equally part of his legacy. When he was arrested in 1952, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad—his deputy in NC—became Prime Minister. This too reflects NC’s internal hunger for power.

The trajectory of NC shows a consistent pattern: compromise, opportunism, and pursuit of office above principle. Its accusations against PDP are designed to deflect attention from its own record. If Sheikh Abdullah had not surrendered in 1975, Kashmir’s position might have been very different today. What has brought us here is not PDP’s alliance with BJP, but NC’s long-standing lust for power.

---

*BBA student at Amity University and political activist