Power, Survival, and the Politics of Kashmir Across Eras

Few leaders in Jammu and Kashmir have remained as continuously relevant—and as consistently contested—as Farooq Abdullah. His career is not defined by a single phase or doctrine, but by an ability to move through shifting political terrains while retaining centrality.

His rise was both structured and unsettled. In his final years, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah had already elevated him as President of the National Conference, signalling succession within the party. When Sheikh died in 1982, Farooq assumed office as Chief Minister, inheriting not the authority his father once commanded but a far more fragile political arrangement. That fragility became evident almost immediately. Within months, internal dissent within the National Conference combined with pressure from New Delhi culminated in the dismissal of his government in 1984, engineered by Ghulam Mohammad Shah with backing from Indira Gandhi. The episode marked a decisive rupture and left a lasting imprint on his political thinking.

From that point onward, a clear instinct guided his choices: governments in Jammu and Kashmir could not endure without alignment with the Centre. This was not articulated as theory but applied as practice. His alliance with the Congress in the 1987 elections, his engagement with coalition governments in Delhi under H. D. Deve Gowda and I. K. Gujral, and most notably his decision in 1999 to align with the BJP-led government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, even against prevailing sentiment in Kashmir, all reflected a political realism shaped by experience rather than ideological consistency.

Yet his politics cannot be reduced to alliances alone. Farooq Abdullah belongs to a rare category of regional leaders whose identity extends into the national arena. Continuing the family’s close ties with the Nehru–Gandhi leadership, he cultivated personal and political relationships across party lines, including with Sharad Pawar, Lalu Prasad Yadav, and the Badal leadership in Punjab. This cross-party accessibility allowed him to remain relevant in Delhi even when his position in Srinagar was under strain.

At the same time, his image has remained sharply divided. In Kashmir, he has often been seen as too closely aligned with New Delhi, while in the rest of India he has at times been portrayed as accommodating towards separatist sentiment. These parallel perceptions are not accidental; they reflect the space he has occupied, navigating between assertion of Indian sovereignty and sensitivity to the political realities within the Valley.

The assumption of an uncomplicated inheritance also obscures his early experiences. His formative years were marked by the repeated imprisonment and political exclusion of his father, exposing him to the vulnerabilities of power well before he entered public life. These experiences appear to have shaped a leadership style that prioritised survival, negotiation, and flexibility over rigid positioning.

In manner and presence, he stood apart from earlier leadership. Charismatic, socially at ease, and at times unpredictable, Farooq Abdullah brought a degree of informality into politics that contrasted with the austerity of the previous generation. Even while holding office, he remained a visible public figure, comfortable in both governance and social spaces, and came to be regarded as one of the more stylish and accessible politicians of his time.

Beneath this, however, lay a consistent political line. He has remained firmly pro-India in orientation, openly secular in outlook, and comfortable across religious spaces, while continuing to advocate autonomy within the constitutional framework. His career moves through succession, removal, return, adaptation, and persistence, with each phase shaped as much by external intervention as by internal political calculation. Accounts such as My Dismissal and Kashmir’s Prodigal Son capture these different layers, offering both personal narrative and external interpretation.

He remains active in public life. His career has rarely followed a straight line and has seldom occupied uncontested space, yet across decades marked by upheaval, insurgency, and shifting alignments, he has remained present, adapting when necessary, resisting when required, and, above all, enduring.