When the Baisaran massacre shocked the conscience of the nation, political responses began to trickle in. Among the first to issue a strong-worded condemnation was Chief Minister Omar Abdullah. His statement publicly blamed Pakistan, saying, “We all know where the guns, the ideology, and the logistics come from. Pakistan’s role in fomenting terror in Jammu and Kashmir cannot be wished away.”
A rare moment of candor, one would think. But a deeper look into the recent National Conference resolution passed in the wake of the massacre tells a story soaked in doublespeak and political expediency. Not once in the official party resolution is Pakistan even mentioned – let alone held accountable. This deliberate omission exposes the chasm between Omar Abdullah’s personal rhetoric and his party’s official stance, laying bare a calculated strategy: to appear nationalistic in public but maintain strategic ambiguity in official records.
This article attempts to dissect that duplicity, explore the motivations behind it, and expose the uncomfortable truth: Omar Abdullah wants to stay in the good books of both New Delhi and Islamabad. In this complex political tango, truth and accountability become collateral damage.
The Hypocrisy at a Glance
Let’s begin with the facts. On one hand, Omar Abdullah takes to Twitter and media channels, bluntly naming Pakistan as the epicenter of cross-border terrorism. On the other, the National Conference, under his de facto leadership, passes a resolution completely sidestepping any mention of Pakistan. This raises fundamental questions: Was Omar’s public statement merely an act of political theatre? Why would a grand old party that claims to represent Kashmir’s aspirations fail to name the country that even their own leader blames for the violence?
The answer lies in political calibration, not moral conviction.
Omar Abdullah’s politics has long thrived on managing perceptions. In Kashmir, his party has historically positioned itself as a protector of Kashmiri identity, autonomy, and resistance to central domination. But since the abrogation of Article 370, that narrative has weakened. To remain politically relevant, Omar has had to re-engineer his party’s public messaging – especially for the rest of India. Hence, we see strong verbal condemnations of Pakistan on camera, but a strategic reluctance to make that condemnation official.
Why? Because an official stand becomes part of the party’s documented history. It can’t be walked back or denied. Public statements, on the other hand, are ephemeral and can be denied, diluted, or dismissed as “personal views.” This duality allows Omar to navigate both New Delhi’s hardline expectations and his core voter base’s emotional ambivalence toward Pakistan.
Playing to Modi While Winking at Pakistan
In the post-370 political landscape, every regional player in Kashmir is realigning their postures. The National Conference, after having been politically decimated, is now eyeing a tactical comeback. This requires, on one hand, appearing “reasonable” to New Delhi – especially to a central government led by Narendra Modi – and on the other, avoiding alienation from its traditional support base, where a significant section still harbors soft sentiments for Pakistan or, at the very least, resentment against the Indian state.
Omar’s public blaming of Pakistan serves the first goal – getting approving nods from the Modi-led establishment. It’s a signal: “See, I’m not like the hardliners. I can be pragmatic.” But when it comes to codifying that sentiment in an official party resolution, he pulls back. The reason is clear: any documented antagonism toward Pakistan might burn bridges with ideological and geopolitical stakeholders he isn’t ready to antagonize.
Ironically, this strategy of refusing to name Pakistan – especially in contexts where its complicity is evident – is borrowed straight from the separatist lexicon. Over decades, separatist leaders like Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq have had mastered the art of condemning violence without ever naming its perpetrator. They would issue generic condemnations of bloodshed, often adding a perfunctory line about “state oppression,” while leaving the source of terror conveniently vague.
By refusing to name Pakistan in the NC resolution, Omar Abdullah is walking the same tightrope. His silence is not accidental – it is emblematic. It’s a studied silence, weighed and measured, designed not to ruffle feathers across the border. And that is deeply problematic, especially for a party that claims to believe in constitutional politics and democracy.
At the heart of this duplicity lies an ethical vacuum. If Omar Abdullah truly believes Pakistan is to blame for the deaths in Baisaran – as he publicly claims – then his party’s resolution should have reflected that. To do otherwise is not just political cowardice; it is moral abdication.
What message does this send to the families of those who died? What signal does it send to the security forces battling terrorism on the ground? And more importantly, what precedent does it set for future acts of terror? That condemnation will be loud but selective? That justice will be spoken but not pursued?
A party that cannot even name a known enemy in the wake of civilian bloodshed cannot be trusted to lead a people still recovering from decades of trauma.
Like many ordinary Kashmiris who closely watch the shifting sands of geopolitical developments, one wonders whether the National Conference – and Omar Abdullah in particular – now believes that Pakistan is once again “back in circulation.” With backchannel diplomacy, Afghanistan’s Taliban dynamics, and shifting global priorities, Pakistan appears to be gradually reclaiming relevance in the region’s power matrix. Could it be that NC’s silence in the resolution is a reflection of this perception? That they are trying to play it safe – just in case the winds change direction? If so, it reveals not just a crisis of moral clarity but also a dangerous readiness to adapt principles based on perceived geopolitical gain. When political actors begin hedging bets on terror based on foreign policy forecasts, the line between strategy and complicity begins to blur.
The Cost of Being Clever
There is a popular saying in Kashmir politics: “Wazwan toh khaa, par daam naa de” – Eat the feast but don’t pay the price. Omar Abdullah is attempting precisely that – trying to enjoy the rewards of nationalist posturing while avoiding the cost of taking a principled stand.
But in an era where political duplicity is increasingly exposed and punished, such cleverness might backfire. Voters – especially the younger generation – are more politically aware and less tolerant of such fence-sitting. They want honesty, not hedging. NC has been hedging Kashmir and Kashmiris for the last seven-decades-and-a-half. Kashmiris have so got used to it that all now suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
If Omar Abdullah wants to be taken seriously as a leader in post-Article 370 Kashmir, he must abandon this politics of convenience. Pakistan’s involvement in Kashmir’s bloodshed is not a “narrative”; it’s a documented reality. And refusing to name that reality does not make it disappear. It only makes the refuser complicit in the conspiracy of silence that has cost Kashmir dearly.
As long as the National Conference continues to issue sterile, politically sanitized resolutions devoid of accountability, it will continue to drift into irrelevance. And Omar Abdullah, with all his eloquence and legacy, will be remembered not as a statesman, but as a symbol of everything that went wrong with Kashmir’s mainstream politics – ambitious, articulate, but fatally ambivalent.
