Omar vs Mehbooba - How Kashmir's dynasts flip on India and Pakistan
An amusing side effect of Operation Sindoor is being felt in Kashmir, where two prominent political parties are trying to expose each other's allegiance to the country.
The Abdullahs and the Muftis are two major dynastic families in the valley that have held political sway for most of the time in the erstwhile state, with the former being in power for a longer period.
The two families are known rivals and have been vehemently fighting against each other politically for decades - between Mufti Mohammad Sayeed (from NC to Congress to founding the People's Democratic Party) and Sheikh Abdullah (National Conference); Mufti Sayeed and Farooq Abdullah; and later Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah. All five leaders have served as Chief Ministers of the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir, and now NC's Omar Abdullah is the Chief Minister of the Union Territory. He won the first Assembly elections held after the abrogation of Article 370 and the revocation of statehood in August 2019.
Together, the two families have ruled the state for over three decades, clearly exhibiting their political influence in the UT, especially in Kashmir. The leaders have consistently been at loggerheads, except during very brief periods - such as during the Assembly elections in 1996, the Lok Sabha polls in 1998, and the formation of the People's Alliance for Gupkar Declaration (PAGD) in 2019 (a coalition of political parties seeking the restoration of Article 370 and Article 35A). Except for these moments, the families have remained political rivals.
From political rhetoric to accusations of having links with terrorists and separatists, the fight has now shifted to a contest over who is more loyal to India or harbours softer sentiments for Pakistan. The latest spat, which unfolded on social media, is not merely amusing - it reflects the nature of politics that has played out in J&K, particularly in Kashmir, since 1947.
Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti inadvertently revealed uncomfortable truths about each other's dynastic politics, which have alternated between pro-and anti-India and pro-and anti-Pakistan stances depending on political convenience.
The public exchange broke out on May 16 between Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and his predecessor, Mehbooba Mufti, on their respective X handles, after the former called for the revival of the Tulbul Navigation project following the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. Mufti accused Abdullah of adopting "provocative" measures amid ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan.
What CM Abdullah replied was not shocking in content, but rare in its bluntness for someone holding high office in Kashmir. He said: "Actually, what is unfortunate is that with your blind lust to try to score cheap publicity points and please some people sitting across the border, you refuse to acknowledge that the IWT has been one of the biggest historic betrayals of the interests of the people of J&K. I have always opposed this treaty & I will continue to do so."
The phrase "please some people sitting across the border" was clearly a reference to Pakistan.
Not one to remain silent, Mufti shot back with a stinging post that brought up historical controversies about the NC's political leanings.
She wrote: "Time will reveal who seeks to appease whom. However, it's worth recalling that your esteemed grandfather Sheikh Sahab once advocated for accession to Pakistan for over two decades after losing power. But post being reinstated as Chief Minister, he suddenly reversed his stance by aligning with India."
Although she accused the NC of shifting loyalties for political gain, her own and her party's stances have also changed dramatically over time. She has openly supported separatists, visited the families of terrorists, and repeatedly urged the Indian government to initiate dialogue with Pakistan.
Her father, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, had once accused Omar Abdullah's father, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, of having links with the terrorist group Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) in the 1980s. Sayeed himself was accused of orchestrating attacks in his home district, Anantnag, against minority Kashmiri Pandits in 1986, soon after the purported desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on February 3, 1986, and the subsequent reopening of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple in Ayodhya.
Mufti Sayeed went on to become Union Home Minister in 1989, during which time Kashmir witnessed some of the worst terrorist violence targeting Hindus, and also the kidnapping of his daughter. At the time, Farooq Abdullah was the Chief Minister. Several terrorists were released from jail, an act widely seen as a sign of weakness on the part of the Indian government.
The contrasting reactions of the Muftis and Abdullahs were again visible after the abrogation of Article 370, when both warned Delhi of serious consequences from Pakistan and China.
Their apparent soft stance toward Pakistan continues. Even after the April 22 Pahalgam attack, both NC and PDP reiterated the need for dialogue with the neighbouring country. Mehbooba Mufti went a step further by criticising the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and saying it should not have happened.
Operation Sindoor has altered the India-Pakistan dynamic, and CM Omar Abdullah now supports suspending the IWT, advocating for new power projects in the Union Territory. However, Mehbooba Mufti, whose party won only three seats in the 2024 Assembly elections, has expressed concern over Delhi's hardline position.
While the two families continue their public feud, long-hidden facts are beginning to surface. It has taken over three decades and Operation Sindoor for the Abdullahs and Muftis to reveal some uncomfortable truths. A lot remains buried in the dark corners of Kashmir's politics and violence. If only the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits had been thoroughly investigated, the fight against Pakistan's terror networks in and outside Kashmir might have been far easier.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
25 minutes ago
- Hans India
MLA alleges irregularities in housing project; summoned by CM
Kalaburagi: Senior Congress MLA and Vice-Chairman of the Karnataka State Planning Board, B.R. Patil, has alleged that he was not informed about the foundation ceremony of a government-funded hostel building under the Maulana Azad Residential School project in Aland constituency, despite ₹17 crore having been sanctioned by the Department of Minority Welfare. Speaking to reporters on Monday, Patil claimed that protocol was not followed and said, 'I was not invited for the bhoomi puja. The work has already commenced without informing the local legislator.' Supporting his earlier allegations of corruption in housing schemes, a new video has surfaced on social media, reportedly showing a gram sabha held on January 23 in Bhattarki village under Dhangapur gram panchayat in Aland taluk. The video allegedly discusses financial dealings related to house allotments under the Rajiv Gandhi Housing compounding the controversy, senior BJP leader R. Ashoka alleged a ₹2,137 crore scam in the housing department. He claimed that commissions totalling 26 per cent were being collected for approvals and sanctions — including 23 per cent for ministers, 3 per cent for government offices, 25 per cent for obtaining work orders, and 8 per cent for NOC clearances. In the wake of these revelations, Ministers G. Parameshwara, Shivanna Patil, and B. Nagendra have extended support to B.R. Patil, acknowledging that he has brought the matter to public attention. They stated that if specific complaints exist, they should be reported to the police for investigation and necessary action. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has reportedly summoned B.R. Patil to clarify his remarks and the viral audio linked to the alleged scam. The MLA is expected to meet the Chief Minister in Bengaluru on the evening of June 25. Patil, who hadearlier indicated he would appear if called, confirmed that the CM contacted him by phone and asked for an in-person explanation.
Hans India
25 minutes ago
- Hans India
Appeasement politics resurfaces in Karnataka
Among the southern states, Karnataka has been continually seeing some noise or the other related to minority affairs in the State. The moves to bring in any welfare measure to make the government schemes look more inclusive and lend a stamp of affirmative action on them have been critically examined and vehemently opposed by the Opposition parties (read BJP). With its earlier move to reserving four per cent of public contracts for minorities still stuck with the Governor, who has sought President's approval for it, it is indeed a daredevil move by the Siddaramaiah government to introduce another scheme wherein minorities are to be provided with 15 per cent reservation in housing, which translates to a five per cent hike over the existing quota. Buoyed by a series of missteps taken by the Congress government in the Dakshina Kannada region where Hindu activism has been on the boil for quite some time now, the BJP naturally flayed the recent measure as 'appeasement' and accused the government of prioritising religion over welfare. Even though the government quickly clarified that it was a scheme in existence since 2019 and not an arbitrary move, the BJP propaganda machinery right from Delhi to Bengaluru did not stop their attacks. Moreover, as the Minority and Housing Welfare Minister Zameer Ahmed Khan informed, it was a recommendation made by the coalition government headed by the then Chief Minister, HD Kumaraswamy. However, the chaos has not subsided. One may argue that the government is using these tactics to sidestep the terrible times they are going through currently with the Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede still going nowhere. Yet, the Congress has never shied away from its pro-minority moves even if it has run the risk of being called excessively partial towards their committed vote banks, which the state Muslims have often turned out to be. In a milieu where religion is often seen as a counter-weighing factor to political decision-making, taking on a fiery Opposition that has never shied away from its aggressive posturing and response has negated many a public welfare measure, which the Congress government proposed over the years. This has become evident in Karnataka, ever since BJP ascended to power in 2008 and has grown from strength to strength to become a formidable political force. If the GOP thinks it is assuring the Muslim voters that they are always there for them, it is an infructuous effort as the largest minority in the state would never veer towards the BJP. If one sees it as a regular administrative action, all the game plans they seem to be having are already common knowledge for their rivals, who have, over the years, unabashedly raised the communal temperature on the other side to keep their vote bank under control. The truth is that the Congress government, despite the regularly reported tiff between the top two – Siddaramaiah and DK Shivakumar – faces no immediate threat from the Opposition, which is in no position to dethrone them. Moreover, the Congress has, in the recent past, never won two terms at a stretch anywhere in India and so they would rather bumble along, managing the BJP and its allies, doing what it does best. Till it is time to face the elections again.
Mint
28 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump's relentless Fed pressure creates lose-lose scenario for Powell
President Trump escalated his long-running public attack on the Federal Reserve, creating a lose-lose situation for the central bank as it navigates the risks of higher prices and weaker growth from tariffs. The assault has little modern precedent and forces the Fed to confront a dreadful choice: It could cut rates sharply as Trump demands and risk fueling inflation that damages its credibility with markets. Or it could maintain its current wait-and-see stance, and face further bullying that would weaken its standing if the economy slows sharply and the administration is validated in its view that inflation shouldn't be a worry. Fed Chair Jerome Powell faces Congress on Tuesday for regularly scheduled testimony on monetary policy. How lawmakers regard the attack on Powell will be a key gauge of support for Fed independence. The central bank has in recent decades operated with a measure of independence to set monetary policy free of direct political control, which Powell has worked assiduously to defend. The stakes extend far beyond current policy debates. Powell's term expires in less than a year. Trump could establish a template for presidential influence that reshapes the central bank, with his relentless criticism serving as both a warning to Powell's successor and a casting call for replacements who signal they will appease him. If future central bank leaders feel more compelled to consider political preferences alongside economic data, decades of credibility that anchor global confidence in U.S. monetary policy could be degraded. On Friday, Trump called on Powell to reduce the central bank's policy rate, currently around 4.3%, to between 1% and 2% to lower rising costs to service the federal debt. Other Trump advisers, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, have amplified the president's criticisms of monetary policy by arguing that worries about tariff-driven inflation are being exaggerated. Since meeting with Powell privately in the Oval Office last month, Trump has unleashed a torrent of insults. 'I don't know why the Board doesn't override this Total and Complete Moron!" said Trump in a social-media post on Friday. Trump mused about attempting to fire Powell, an idea he had previously brandished and then abandoned. Powell has said the Fed makes its decisions based on its best analysis of the economy. 'From my standpoint, it's not complicated. What everyone [at the Fed] wants is a good, solid, American economy," he said last week. Trump's call for lower rates could coincide with an unusual divide inside the Fed across party lines. Among Fed officials who have spoken since last week's meeting, the only two to signal any appetite to cut rates at the Fed's next meeting in late July are the two appointed by Trump in his first term. Michelle Bowman said in a speech Monday that she was more worried about risks of weaker employment than higher inflation—a meaningful shift for a policymaker who was previously highly focused on inflation worries. Fed governor Christopher Waller, who was appointed by Trump in 2020, said in a CNBC interview on Friday that he could support a rate cut next month because he worries about allowing too much labor market weakness. In several speeches over the past two months, former Fed governor Kevin Warsh has said the central bank is to blame for attacks on its conduct. 'I read breathlessly in the newspapers how mean these politicians are to the central bank. Well, grow up! Be tough," said Warsh, a leading candidate for Fed chair, during a panel discussion last month. Presidential pressure over Fed chairs isn't new, but it used to happen in private. In the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson physically intimidated his Fed chair, William McChesney Martin Jr., after summoning him to his Texas ranch; seated together on the porch, they later played down any conflict to reporters. In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon and his advisers planted a false story in the press that then-chair Arthur Burns was seeking a pay raise while arguing for price and wage controls. Burns ultimately yielded to White House pressure. The high inflation that followed in the 1970s was cured by punishing recessions in the early 1980s. Ever since, central bankers in the U.S. and other advanced economies have tried—and largely succeeded—in building support among the government for greater independence, arguing that it leads to better economic outcomes. 'It is normal for presidents to put pressure on the Fed chair, but Trump's feel different. His attacks are more vicious, constant, and public," Mark Spindel, an investment manager who co-wrote a history of Fed independence, said in an interview Sunday. Powell became Fed chair in 2018 after Trump appointed him, and the president frequently bashed Powell for being too slow to support the economy by lowering interest rates. Trump's critiques over the past week have been different. Republicans in Congress and Trump's White House have found it more difficult than expected to cut spending and reduce deficits. That has led the president to demand lower interest rates to bring down growing payments on the federal debt, which this year could exceed what the U.S. spends on the military. Worries about a central bank succumbing to such 'fiscal dominance" was the core tension that led the Fed to seek greater autonomy, often referred to as its independence, from the executive branch in the early 1950s. Cutting rates aggressively without signs of more evident economic weakness risks backfiring because long-term interest rates could go up. The Fed controls short-term interest rates but long-term rates are determined by investor demand for U.S. bonds. Trump acknowledged Friday that 'my strong criticism" of Powell 'makes it more difficult for him to do what he should be doing." Fed officials have been unnerved by the attacks. If the Fed isn't seen as acting in the country's best interest, it will be harder for the institution to make the at-times difficult but necessary decisions to slow the economy to control inflation. Trump's increasingly sharp attacks on Powell show how the president has few good options to get the monetary policy he wants without making a more persuasive argument about the risks facing the economy. Ousting Powell looks less viable than it did a few weeks ago. The Supreme Court went out of its way to signal that the Fed was off limits when it granted Trump's emergency request last month to fire federal commissioners in the face of a law prohibiting their arbitrary removal. A second option would be to announce Powell's successor unusually early, which Trump hinted at doing earlier this month. A so-called 'shadow chair" would be designed to undercut Powell by getting markets to place less weight on his forward-looking statements about policy. It could put the chair-in-waiting in an awkward spot of publicly criticizing his or her future Fed colleagues—whose support will be needed once the new chair takes office—and being judged by market participants as a presidential toady. Alternatively, the shadow chair might defend the Fed's moves, upsetting Trump and losing the job before even taking office. The lack of attractive options for dislodging Powell explains why a sustained pressure campaign is likely to continue. The Fed is worried about letting inflation become a problem for a second time in five years. But Trump is balancing out that institutional risk by putting officials on notice that they will be blamed if the economy takes a dive. 'Trump's broadsides 'work.' That's why he does them," said Spindel. Write to Nick Timiraos at
