Mehbooba Mufti’s history lesson for National Conference on Centre-J&K ‘mistrust’

Mehbooba Mufti accused the National Conference of creating a lasting climate of suspicion between New Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir. Her central charge was that the party’s changing political positions made Kashmiris uncertain about their future and deepened mistrust on both sides.

She cited a sequence of positions as evidence. According to Mufti, the NC first spoke of a plebiscite, then Pakistan, and later accepted political office in 1975. She said Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah also “buried” the autonomy discussion when he moved from the prime minister’s chair to the chief minister’s position.

Mufti presented this history as a warning for the present. She said the Centre and Kashmiris now distrust each other, while recent statements about Pakistan can reinforce Delhi’s suspicion. Her proposed response was not force or punitive laws, but dialogue, dignity, and renewed connections through traditional trade routes.

The National Conference, or NC, is the party associated in the article with founder Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and president Farooq Abdullah. The People’s Democratic Party, or PDP, was founded by former chief minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, and is led by his daughter, Mehbooba Mufti. Both are important because they shape political arguments inside Jammu & Kashmir.

The article presents the parties through their different political roles. Mufti accused the NC of changing its positions on plebiscite, Pakistan, and autonomy. She described the PDP as having been created to give people a voice and to end political “suffocation.” Hundreds of PDP workers attended its Srinagar convention.

Their statements matter beyond party competition. The NC’s positions can affect how Delhi interprets Kashmiri sentiment, while the PDP argues for dignity, dialogue, and less reliance on force. Together, the parties represent influential regional voices in debates over trust, political rights, and Jammu & Kashmir’s future.

In the article, Jammu & Kashmir’s accession to India means the region became part of India at the time of Indian independence. Mufti used this history to challenge arguments that place responsibility for the decision on her father, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. She said he did not make the decision.

Mufti attributed the choice to Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the National Conference founder. She also highlighted that Jammu & Kashmir was a Muslim-majority state when the accession occurred. Her point was that the decision belonged to an earlier political leadership and should not be assigned to her family.

The history matters because it remains tied to present mistrust between the Centre and Jammu & Kashmir. Mufti connected the original accession with later disputes about autonomy, dignity, and political representation. Her speech used that background to argue that current tensions require dialogue rather than suspicion or coercive measures.

The 1975 change marked a shift in Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s constitutional and political position, as described by Mufti. He accepted the office of chief minister instead of retaining the earlier title of prime minister. Mufti treated that change as a major turning point in Kashmir’s autonomy debate.

Her criticism focused on the political exchange behind the change. She alleged that Sheikh Abdullah “buried” the conversation around autonomy when he traded the prime minister’s chair for the chief minister’s chair. In her account, accepting the new office signalled a retreat from an earlier position and contributed to uncertainty among Kashmiris.

That interpretation remains central to Mufti’s broader argument about mistrust. She said the NC’s shifting stances made people unsure what the party really stood for. By connecting 1975 to today, she argued that unresolved questions about autonomy and dignity continue to shape relations between Kashmiris and the Centre.

The convention drew hundreds of People’s Democratic Party workers to Sher-e-Kashmir Park in Srinagar. The article described it as one of the party’s largest conventions in recent years. It therefore showed a substantial public mobilisation for the PDP, although no exact attendance figure was provided.

The gathering gave Mehbooba Mufti a platform to attack both the National Conference and the Centre. She discussed mistrust, changing political positions, dignity, dialogue, and the limits of using security laws. She also invoked Faiz Ahmad Faiz while urging workers to speak up and prepare for the future.

Its size mattered politically because it demonstrated active support and organisational energy around the PDP’s message. The convention did not resolve the disputes Mufti raised, but it gave her an audience for calling for dialogue, reopening traditional trade routes, and avoiding force against Kashmiris.

The article presents the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Public Safety Act, and employee dismissals as coercive responses to political discontent. Mufti’s argument was that these tools cannot settle the underlying issues in Kashmir. They address conduct or employment, but not the mistrust and political grievances she described.

Her proposed alternative was dialogue and restraint. She asked how long the Centre would use an “iron fist” and silence people. She also opposed using force against Kashmiris. In this framework, punitive action may suppress expression temporarily while leaving the central dispute over dignity and trust unresolved.

The immediate consequence, according to Mufti’s position, is not reconciliation. Political discontent remains, and suspicion between the Centre and the region can continue. She said a more durable response would involve talking to people, respecting their dignity, and reopening traditional trade routes such as Kashgar, Khotan, and Yarkand.

Mufti’s argument is that conflict rooted in mistrust cannot be solved through force alone. Dialogue matters because it gives the Centre and Kashmiris a way to address political concerns directly. Greater autonomy matters because it relates to the unresolved questions of dignity and decision-making that she connected to Kashmir’s history.

She paired these ideas with a practical proposal: reopen traditional trade routes to Kashgar, Khotan, and Yarkand. These routes would represent renewed links beyond security and punishment. Her broader mechanism is confidence-building: listening to people, reducing force, and restoring meaningful political and economic connections.

The article does not report that any of these proposals were accepted or implemented. Their forward implication is therefore a choice between continued suspicion and a dialogue-based approach. Mufti argued that laws, employee dismissals, and an “iron fist” cannot resolve the region’s issues, while engagement could address trust and dignity.