Dr Farooq Abdullah’s sharp remarks against Srinagar MP Aga Syed Ruhullah were not beginning of National Conference’s confrontation with him. They were strongest public expression yet of an internal conflict that has already been building for months.
Before Dr Farooq Abdullah asked Ruhullah to resign from Parliament and test his strength in a fresh election, other senior party leaders had already made similar demands. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah had publicly questioned Ruhullah’s approach and suggested that someone unwilling to stand with the party’s line should not continue to claim its mandate.
Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Choudhary, too, had asked Ruhullah to resign if he believed the National Conference had abandoned the commitments on which he was elected.
The disagreement is not between Ruhullah and Omar. It is now a visible confrontation between Srinagar MP and a substantial section of the party’s leadership.
Dr Farooq Abdullah’s intervention merely gave the dispute its most dramatic moment. In an interview, Dr Farooq Abdullah said that if Ruhullah believed he possessed an independent political identity, he should leave National Conference, resign from his Lok Sabha seat and return to people for a fresh mandate.
The message was blunt: Ruhullah’s victory, according to the party leadership, belongs to National Conference’s organisation strength, symbol and legacy not to an individual leader.
But the intensity of that response has created a larger question.
If the National Conference believes that Ruhullah is acting against the party, why has it not formally proceeded against him?
1984 Reference
Dr Farooq Abdullah’s reference to the political upheaval of 1984 was particularly significant. He recalled the legislators who revolted against him and helped bring down his government, warning that such leaders had eventually disappeared from political relevance.
The warning was unmistakable. It was meant to convey that no individual can become bigger than Abdullahs first and then National Conference, and that rebellion against party’s leadership carries a political cost.
Yet the history of the 1984 revolt does not entirely support Dr. Farooq’s claim that all those associated with it vanished from public life.
Ghulam Mohammad Shah was not merely a rebel figure. After fall of Dr Farooq Abdullah’s government in July 1984, he became Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir with Congress support. He held office until March 1986. Whatever one’s assessment of that government, Shah did not disappear from the political record. He became one of the central figures of a defining chapter of Jammu and Kashmir’s political history.
Ghulam Hassan Mir remained politically relevant long after 1984 and is still a force to reckon with. He was among the legislators who supported the new G. M. Shah government and served as Law Minister in that administration.
Later, he emerged as one of the more durable political figures in north Kashmir. He won the 2002 Assembly election from Tangmarg, served as Urban Development and Tourism Minister in Late Mufti Mohammad Sayeed’s government, and subsequently held ministerial office in the Omar Abdullah-led coalition government as well.
Hakeem Mohammad Yasin built an independent political career after the events of 1980s. He founded Jammu and Kashmir People’s Democratic Front and became a recognised political figure in Budgam.
He was elected from Khan Sahib in 2002 and retained the seat in subsequent elections, including 2008 and 2014. He also served as Power, Revenue, Transport, Food and Civil Supplies Minister.
Mohammad Dilawar Mir, another leader linked to 1984 split, continued to remain influential in Rafiabad politics. He was elected to Jammu and Kashmir Assembly five times and served as a minister in different governments across different political phases.
His political influence also continued through his family: his son, Yawar Dillawar Mir, won Rafiabad Assembly seat in 2014 on a PDP ticket. Dillawar is now with Jammu and Kashmir Apni Party.
Chaudhary Talib Hussain also retained a political profile after the rupture with the National Conference and remained an important political voice from the Rajouri region.
None of the 1984 rebels went into oblivion. The broader point is not that every rebel achieved the same level of electoral success or political longevity. It is that the 1984 revolt did not erase every political career.
Some leaders lost relevance but their families flourished. Others adapted, joined new formations, contested elections, entered governments and maintained regional or constituency-level influence.
The political lesson of 1984, therefore, is not as simple as “rebel and disappear.”
Why No Show-Cause Notice?
The history of 1984 rebels makes present confrontation with Ruhullah more interesting.
If tNational Conference believes that Ruhullah has crossed a clear line, it has formal options. The party can issue a show-cause notice, ask him to explain his conduct, suspend him or begin proceedings for expulsion. So far, it has not done so. Instead, the party’s leadership has relied on public statements, political warnings and demands for resignation.
This may be a strategic choice. A public statement can remain broad and rhetorical. A show-cause notice requires specific allegations.
What exactly would the party charge Ruhullah with?
Would it accuse him of violating party discipline? If so, which precise action would constitute indiscipline? Would it accuse him of criticising Omar Abdullah or the government? Or would it accuse him of departing from the National Conference’s ideology? That last question may be the most difficult for the party.
Ruhullah has consistently raised issues closely associated with the National Conference’s own political language: Article 370, Article 35A, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, release of political prisoners and party’s promised political struggle. His position is likely to be that he is not questioning the manifesto; he is asking why the party has not acted with sufficient seriousness on it.
Ruhullah’s Advantage
A formal notice could offer Ruhullah precisely the platform he seeks. He could respond in writing, cite the National Conference’s election commitments and ask the leadership to explain whether it has changed its political position after entering government. Such a reply would not remain confidential. It would circulate publicly, be debated on television and social media. It would be used by rival parties to question National Conference’s ideological consistency.
This is why Ruhullah’s invitation to party to issue a show-cause notice carries political weight. He is effectively telling the leadership: put the allegations on record and I will put the party’s promises on record.
That transforms an internal disciplinary dispute into a larger political argument about accountability, mandate and ideology.
The National Conference can accuse him of personal ambition. Ruhullah can respond that the party is uncomfortable because he is raising the questions it once asked voters to take seriously. The party can say he is weakening its organisation. He can ask whether unity can be built by silencing criticism over core political commitments.
The Real Unease
The real issue may not be whether Ruhullah can win without National Conference. That remains a political question that only an election can answer. The more immediate question is whether the National Conference is willing to take the risk of testing him. Expelling or forcing out a sitting MP from Srinagar could turn him into a more independent political figure. It could also open a public debate on whether the party has diluted its own historical positions.
That may explain the present strategy: strong language, repeated calls for resignation but no formal disciplinary process.
Dr Farooq Abdullah’s remarks were likely intended to reduce Ruhullah’s political stature. Instead, they may have underlined his importance. A leader who can provoke reactions from the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, party president and other senior National Conference figures is clearly not being treated as politically insignificant.
For now, the National Conference has issued warnings. Ruhullah has asked for those warnings to be put in writing. The next move will show whether the party wants a decisive confrontatio or prefers to keep an increasingly uncomfortable dispute within political limits.
