A political turmoil that’s been simmering for some time has erupted in the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (NC). What was planned to be a show of opposition unity in the Assembly has now been engulfed by a much worse spectacle: an ugly and public exchange of word between the party’s own leaders. The furious exchanges between Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, party MP Aga Ruhullah Mehdi, and senior leader Majeed Larmi has exposed a deepening divide which raises doubts as to the party’s credibility and its pledges to the public.
The lines of this conflict are no longer being whispered about in the hallways, they are now proclaimed from the podiums of press conferences. Fueling this is profound disappointment expressed by Aga Ruhullah, who regarded himself as a star campaigner in the 2024 elections. His main contention is that the party had abandoned the very promises on which it sought a mandate, namely creating one lakh jobs. His salient question, “Where has that fight gone?” resonates not only with his supporters, but likely many supporters of the party that see a disconnect between political aspirations, and real outcomes.
However, the leadership’s response has evidently been quite telling. Rather than responding soberly to these valid concerns, leadership’s response was dismissive and personal. Omar Abdullah’s careful and public demonstration of the “earth and sky” that separates a loyalist like Mian Altaf from Ruhullah was an obvious demonstration of displeasure, as well as a refusal to engage with the criticism. Majeed Larmi’s subsequent dare that the MP should resign his seat if he was really dissatisfied, was telling. This angle of questioning a critic’s loyalty, rather than engaging their substantive critique, is a classical, albeit dangerous, political tactic.
While the leadership is right to the take note of the structural limitations placed on an elected government in the present arrangement (i.e., the absence of full statehood, and the LG’s supervision of crucial domains), such limitations cannot become excuse forever. Voters chose the NC to face these exact constraints and to mount a determined struggle for their rights. To plead helplessness in the face of what are core promises is to plead for political irrelevance.
The dangers facing the National Conference are varied. First, this public fighting gives the impression of a party at war, which erodes public trust and clearly benefits its political opponents. Second, and of even greater concern, the party risks alienating its base. Ruhullah’s questions about youth who have been jailed and unfulfilled commitments, and the collective experiences of the people who elected the party.
The power of a political party comes not from the silence of its members but from being able to gather international voices for a similar objective. The current uncivil war in the NC only benefits its enemies. The party leadership must move past the personal jabs and address the issue of credibility that this rift demonstrates, for the sake of its own future and the future of those it represents.
