The history of Jammu and Kashmir since 1947 is not merely a story of Pakistani aggression, separatism and terrorism. It is equally a history of political miscalculations, shifting loyalties, personal ambitions and repeated betrayals of democratic principles by the two political parties that dominated its political landscape for decades—the National Conference and Congress. Their relationship, oscillating between political friendship and bitter hostility, created recurring crises of legitimacy and governance. While Pakistan bears direct responsibility for sponsoring cross-border terrorism, the political misadventures of Congress and the National Conference deserve serious scrutiny for creating conditions of alienation and instability that hostile forces subsequently exploited.

The fundamental question is uncomfortable but unavoidable: could the tragic history of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir have taken a different course had Congress and the National Conference placed democratic institutions above political convenience?Friendship of ConvenienceThe political relationship between Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru established a pattern that would haunt Jammu and Kashmir for generations. Initially portrayed as an ideological partnership rooted in secularism and democracy, their relationship gradually exposed serious differences concerning political authority, constitutional integration and Kashmir’s future.

Nehru supported Sheikh Abdullah as a central figure in Kashmir’s politics following accession to India. Yet the relationship deteriorated as disagreements emerged over constitutional arrangements and Sheikh Abdullah’s political intentions.The dismissal and arrest of Sheikh Abdullah in August 1953 represented an extraordinary political reversal. The leader who had enjoyed Nehru’s confidence was suddenly removed from power.

The episode raises serious questions about political judgment on both sides. If Sheikh Abdullah’s political positions were considered dangerous in 1953, why had they previously received such substantial political support? Equally, why did Sheikh Abdullah’s political approach generate such profound uncertainty about Kashmir’s constitutional future?

The consequences extended far beyond two political personalities. The episode became a lasting source of political grievance and distrust.Democracy Subordinated to PowerThe removal of Sheikh Abdullah initiated a prolonged period in which the legitimacy of successive governments became a recurring controversy.Congress increasingly exercised political influence over Kashmir’s governmental arrangements, while the National Conference’s internal divisions shaped the struggle for authority.Rather than consolidating democratic confidence, political interventions encouraged the perception that governmental survival depended upon political approval from New Delhi.

The damage was institutional. Political competition increasingly revolved around access to power instead of stable democratic principles.Such developments provided........

© Greater Kashmir