The political debate in Jammu and Kashmir has once again turned towards New Delhi. But beneath the familiar arguments over who meets whom in Delhi lies a more important question: what does political engagement with the Centre actually produce for the people of Jammu and Kashmir?The question has gained renewed attention following an article published in Greater Kashmir under the headline “Delhi was good enough for Bukhari. Why not Omar?”, authored by Shreya Handoo, who is associated with the National Conference. The article questions Altaf Bukhari’s political engagement with New Delhi while drawing a comparison with Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s visits and meetings in Delhi.

The comparison, however, raises a larger question of political consistency. If engagement with the Union leadership is legitimate and necessary for one political leader, why should the same engagement be treated as politically questionable when undertaken by another? Political circumstances may change, but the basic democratic standard should remain the same.

The debate should therefore move beyond personalities, photographs and political labels. The important question is not simply who travelled to Delhi, who met the Prime Minister or which political party appears closer to the Centre. The real question is what a political leader takes to Delhi, what issues are placed before the Union Government, what is discussed and negotiated, and what ultimately comes back to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.This is particularly relevant when examining Altaf Bukhari’s approach towards New Delhi. For years, Bukhari has faced criticism for maintaining direct communication with the Union leadership. His meetings with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and senior Union Ministers were used by political opponents to portray him as being excessively close to the BJP. In some political rhetoric, he was even described as the BJP’s “B-team” in Jammu and Kashmir.But political labels rarely tell the whole story.

A regional political leader can disagree with the Centre on important issues and still believe that direct engagement with New Delhi is necessary. Meeting the Prime Minister does not automatically mean endorsing every decision of his government. Dialogue does not necessarily mean agreement, and engagement does not necessarily mean political surrender.

The real question is what is placed on the table.Bukhari’s political approach became particularly visible in March 2020, when he and leaders of his party met Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Issues concerning land, employment and the political future of Jammu and Kashmir were among the concerns raised during that period.The timing of those meetings was significant. They came after the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A, when uncertainty over land, employment, political representation and the future constitutional framework was deeply felt across Jammu and Kashmir.At that point, the questions of land and employment were not merely administrative matters. For many people, they were connected with economic security, political rights and concerns about possible demographic change. Any political effort aimed at addressing these concerns therefore deserved to be examined seriously.

Bukhari and his political camp have maintained that their engagement with New Delhi contributed to protections relating to local employment and land. The continuation of local eligibility in recruitment, including positions from Class IV to higher services such as JKAS and JKPS, has been cited as part of that political effort.

Such claims should naturally be examined against government records and actual policy decisions. Political claims should never replace evidence. At the same time, an initiative should not be dismissed simply because it was pursued by a political leader from another party.The public interest should come before political ownership.Land and employment were among the most sensitive concerns in Jammu and Kashmir after 2019. If political intervention helped protect the interests of local people, that deserves recognition. If it did not, then the political leadership should be questioned. Either way, the assessment should be based on facts and outcomes rather than party labels.

This brings us to the question of political........

© Greater Kashmir