In a revealing interview with a business newspaper, National Conference leader and Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullah, made a statement that deserves far more scrutiny than it has received.

Reflecting on the recent terror attack in Pahalgam and the region’s evolving security architecture, Abdullah remarked, “There was a reason why elected governments were able to bring the graph of militancy down. It was because we had channels of communication not available to Raj Bhawan today."

On the surface, this comment appears to underscore the value of democratic outreach. Yet, beneath the surface, it raises troubling questions: What were these channels? With whom were these communications held? And more importantly, what kind of political ecosystem normalised such informal lines of contact with elements bent on destabilising the Indian state?

The core question is simple but disturbing: What were these “channels of communication" that elected governments like Abdullah’s had with militant groups or their sympathisers or ideologues? Who exactly were they communicating with—and to what end?

If these so-called connections involved speaking with terrorist groups, their intermediaries, terror ideologues, organisers of hartal, bandh or stone pelters or families, then what is being portrayed as dialogue was, in effect, appeasement.

The political involvements in Jammu and Kashmir, with the history of godfather deals and appointments made in secret, speak volumes of silence shaped up through silence. During the era of elected government, along with their allies, there was a government job stealthily reserved for the kin of known militants and separatist........

© News18