A Critical Manipulation

This is in response to Javid Hassan Baig’s article Dated 9.04.25 Published in Greater Kashmir.

“A Critical Distinction” masquerades as a nuanced reflection, but in truth, it is a carefully crafted piece of intellectual camouflage — one that seeks to subtly legitimise the unconstitutional abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A while posturing as a voice of caution.

The tone of the article is seemingly balanced, the language deliberately soft. Javid Hassan Baig, MLA Baramulla, intentionally and strategically plays both sides — offering mild rebukes to the BJP’s methods while accepting, even endorsing, the outcomes. This duality is not accidental, it is a calculated political move to soften public memory, to replace outrage with resignation, and ultimately, to normalise what was an unambiguous act of political aggression against the people of Jammu & Kashmir.

Javid Baig asserts that the abrogation brought “visible stability” and a “controlled atmosphere.” But whose stability is he referring to? A silence enforced by mass detentions, communication blackouts, and a militarised lockdown cannot be interpreted as peace. The people of Kashmir were not pacified — they were paralysed. The absence of resistance in the streets was not consent; it was suppression. To mistake that silence for approval is either wilful ignorance or strategic deceit.

The most telling part of Baig’s article lies in what it omits. There is no condemnation of the manner in which the decision was taken — without consent, without debate, and in violation of federal principles. There is no recognition of the psychological trauma inflicted on an entire population overnight. Instead, Baig couches his argument in vague references to “calm,” “restraint,” and “integration,” carefully avoiding the hard truths about betrayal and broken trust.

Even more hypocritical is Baig’s current defence of the National Conference — the very party he once fiercely and routinely attacked for its repeated betrayals of the Kashmiri people. From 1947 to date, the NC, he is currently associated with, has been complicit in compromising the region’s autonomy, from facilitating the erosion of Article 370 to enabling Delhi’s centralising grip on J&K. Baig, during his time with the PDP, would rightly critique NC’s legacy of sellouts, their patronage politics, and their silence during critical junctures. Now, in a desperate attempt to reposition himself within the shifting political landscape, he conveniently absolves them of their sins and elevates them to the status of reasonable actors. Such selective amnesia is not just dishonest — it is opportunistic.

His claim that the government must not “alienate the very people it seeks to unite” is hollow when he fails to acknowledge that it was the unilateral scrapping of the region’s autonomy — its very political identity — that did the alienating. If Baig truly believes in dignity and dialogue, why does he not question the legitimacy of the abrogation itself? Why does he not demand the restoration of statehood, the return of democratic rights, or justice for those silenced?

The answer is simple: Javid Baig is attempting to rehabilitate a damaging and divisive act by cloaking it in the language of reconciliation. His real motive is not to defend the people of Jammu & Kashmir, but to position himself within a new political order — one shaped by Delhi, not by the democratic will of Kashmiris.

Let us be clear: there can be no unity without justice, no peace without dignity. And no matter how eloquently one tries to justify it, the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A was, and remains, an assault on both.

Mohammed Rafique Rather, a teacher turned politician has worked as spokesperson of PDP and district president of the party for Baramulla.