The ruling Congress party has returned to its attack on Dr. Farooq Abdullah at its Calcutta session. Some of its leaders have even called for placing Jammu and Kashmir under President’s rule. It is possible to take the view that Mrs. Gandhi has not authorized this wild talk but it is an unlikely proposition. So we have to accept the inference that the attack is part of a well (or an ill) thought out plan. But what has Dr. Abdullah done to justify it and what is the objective? We must confess that we are at a loss to understand. For the sake of argument, it may be assumed that the J&K chief minister has invited the wrath of the Congress because, unlike his father, the late Sheikh Abdullah, he has been taking a keen interest in national politics, and that he has been trying, on the one hand, to promote understanding among opposition parties and, on the other, to project himself as an all-India leader. But Dr. Abdullah’s interest in opposition unity and, therefore, in national politics could well be defensive; he has had reasons to be concerned since the last poll in the state when the Congress(I) gave the National Conference a good fight even in the valley. In any case, his appeal among opposition elements and the Muslim community can only increase as a result of the repeated attempts within the state to topple his government and partisan attacks on him like the one at Calcutta. If he is a shrewd person, he must be delighted. The frequent violent agitations within the state are casting him in Sheikh’s familiar role of being the main, if not the sole, defender of the Kashmiri personality and interests. And the harsh criticism by Congress leaders is giving him a stature in the country as a whole which he could not possibly have won by his own efforts.
This line of argument, however, can only lead to the conclusion that Mrs. Gandhi is ill-advised to pursue the present course of action. It cannot provide us a clue to her thinking. Here again we are, quite frankly, at a loss to know whether she is pursuing a limited tactical objective or a larger strategy. For all we know, Mrs. Gandhi might be wanting to keep Dr. Abdullah on the tenterhooks, as she kept the Sheikh after she returned to office in 1980, but not make a “martyr” of him. But to what final end? It is inconceivable that she would regard it possible to put the Congress party in power in Srinagar in the foreseeable future. And if she wants him to limit his political activities to the state, there are other smoother ways to go about the task. So we are back to square one. This leaves us one possible explanation. The campaign against Dr. Abdullah is part of the effort to convince the people that the country faces a grave external threat and that this is being compounded by activities of opposition leaders, especially his. This explanation is too frightening in its implications for us to accept. We do not wish to accept it, much less spell out the possible implications. We hope history is not about to be repeated in Kashmir.