Recent remarks by Farooq Abdullah, the former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir and leader of the National Conference, have sparked intense debate regarding his political positioning and its broader implications. Addressing his party workers on October 24, Abdullah delivered a stark message about the political future of the region, framing Pakistan's international lobbying as a protective shield for Kashmiris.

During the address, he stated, “What hope will you (people of Jammu and Kashmir) have from them (Delhi)? Will you expect that they will do justice for you? Have the courage to fight, or you will be wiped out, and your identity will disappear. They are silent today because there is noise in the world, and our neighbour (Pakistan) is constantly behind this. Everywhere they say, ‘the decision regarding Kashmir has not been made. That is what is saving us. Otherwise, their intentions are not good.”

Observers have pointed out the underlying tone of these statements, suggesting they serve to instigate anxiety among the local populace regarding the Central government's intentions following the abrogation of Article 370. To temper the severity of his criticism, Abdullah later added a clarifying remark, emphasizing that the people of the region “never said that we are not Indians”. However, his overarching narrative clearly expressed deep frustration with New Delhi over the delayed restoration of statehood, while paradoxically finding utility in Islamabad's efforts to keep the dispute visible on the global stage.

Internationalizing the Kashmir Dispute: Pakistan's Diplomatic Maneuvers and the Steadfast Response From the Indian Government

For decades, Pakistan has attempted to elevate the Kashmir issue across global platforms, including the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). These efforts are frequently punctuated by statements from figures like Field Marshal Asim Munir, who has characterized the region by stating, “Kashmir is our jugular vein”. Similarly, Turkish President Recep Erdogan regularly brings up “Kashmir self-determination” during his UNGA addresses, while Pakistani diplomats routinely present narratives of a “Kashmir under siege”.

Despite this coordinated diplomatic push, the geopolitical reality has shifted significantly since the August 2019 administrative changes in Jammu and Kashmir. Most nations continue to view the matter as strictly bilateral. Furthermore, while the OIC—driven by influential members like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan—may issue statements to accommodate Islamabad, broader strategic interests often take precedence. For instance, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has demonstrated an independent foreign policy, refusing to let overarching Islamic bloc dynamics dictate its strong, growing bilateral ties with India. This is most evident in the collaborative focus on the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), which requires robust Indo-Arab cooperation.

Pakistan frequently bases its international appeals on historical UN Security Council directives, specifically Resolution 47 of 1948 and the UNCIP resolutions from August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949. However, these documents clearly stipulated a precondition: Pakistan was required to completely withdraw its military forces and proxy combatants from the region before any plebiscite could be considered. Because this withdrawal never occurred, the resolutions' subsequent steps were never activated. Legally, the 1948 Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh solidified the territory's integration into the Indian Union, leaving Islamabad with no recognized locus standi to demand international intervention.

The Contrasting Realities of Administration: Assessing Developmental Progress in Indian Kashmir and Ongoing Civic Unrest in PoK

The ideological foundation of Pakistan's claim often leans on the demographic composition of the region and religious solidarity, encapsulated by the popular slogan, “Tera Mera rishta kya, la ilaha ill Allah”. Yet, this rhetoric of religious unity starkly contrasts with the administrative realities observed in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

While leaders like Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif echo the sentiment of the region being a critical national artery, the ground reality in PoK has been marked by significant civil unrest. In June 2026, widespread protests erupted against the regional administration. These demonstrations were catalyzed when authorities banned the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) under the Anti-Terrorism Act 2014, designating it a proscribed organization.

The core of the dispute centers around the 45-seat PoK Legislative Assembly, specifically the 12 seats reserved for refugees from Indian Jammu and Kashmir. Local activist groups argue these seats are disproportionately used by Islamabad to manipulate electoral outcomes and install compliant regional governments. On June 7, the PoK Supreme Court ruled that these 12 seats are constitutionally protected, deepening the political gridlock. In response to the growing dissent, regional authorities suspended mobile and internet services and restricted essential supplies, including food, fuel, and healthcare. Reports indicate that the subsequent crackdowns have resulted in over 80 casualties among residents, including Usman Nazir, the brother of prominent JAAC leader Sardar Umar Nazir.

The official response to this unrest has been highly controversial. In late July 2026, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif publicly dismissed the legitimate grievances of the protesters in Mirpur and Rawalakot, labeling them “enemies like India” and stating they were “not proper Kashmiris”.

This environment of suppression stands in sharp relief to the developments in Indian Kashmir post-Article 370 abrogation, where the region has witnessed successful assembly elections, a surge in tourism, and massive infrastructure investments.

A History of Controversial Political Statements: Analyzing Farooq Abdullah's Recurring Narratives and Their Impact on Regional Stability

Farooq Abdullah's recent comments are part of a broader, recurring pattern of rhetoric that often mirrors or inadvertently supports narratives originating from across the border. For example, following a tragic terror incident in Kulgam in August 2026 that claimed the lives of two migrant laborers from Chhattisgarh, Abdullah publicly questioned the timing of such violence, suggesting it suspiciously aligned with growing demands for the restoration of statehood.

His political positioning regarding special status was made unequivocally clear in September 2024 when he declared, “How many years BJP took to abrogate it (Article 370)? By God willing, we will also restore it. It (Article 370) is the heartbeat of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Article 370 and 35 A will be restored,”

This stance found immediate resonance in Islamabad. In a subsequent interview on Geo News with journalist Hamid Mir, Pakistan's Defence Minister Khwaja Asif was asked if his government shared the same perspective as the NC-Congress alliance regarding the constitutional changes. Asif responded, “Absolutely. Even our demand is also the same…” He further elaborated, “I think it is possible. Currently, the National Conference and Congress have very great importance over there. The population of the valley has been motivated a lot on this issue, and I believe there is a chance that the Conference (National Conference) will come to power. They have made this an election issue that the status of Jammu and Kashmir should be restored,”

Abdullah has also frequently utilized the threat of regional conflict in his political messaging. In May 2024, reacting to statements by Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh regarding India's legitimate claims over PoK, Abdullah warned that Pakistan is “not wearing bangles” and crucially, “has atom bombs”. He elaborated, “If the defence minister is saying it, then go ahead. Who are we to stop? But remember, they (Pakistan) are also not wearing bangles. It has atom bombs, and unfortunately, that atom bomb will fall on us,”

Similarly, in December 2023, while urging the Modi government to initiate dialogue with Islamabad despite ongoing cross-border terrorism, he offered a grim prognosis: “If we do not find a solution through dialogue, we will meet the same fate as Gaza and Palestine, which are being bombed by Israel,” This builds upon past controversial statements where he suggested that segments of the local population “do not feel or want to be Indian” and might even prefer Chinese administration.

Ultimately, his most recent assertion that “Pakistan is keeping the Kashmir issue alive and that is saving us [Kashmiris]” highlights a complex political strategy. While demanding constitutional concessions from New Delhi, relying on rhetoric that aligns with a foreign power actively suppressing its own administered territories complicates the political landscape and raises critical questions about the path forward for the region's governance.