iThe British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) notorious for its anti-India bias and controversial reporting conducted an interview with Omar Abdullah, the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. Stephen Sackur whose recent interaction with former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud was criticised for blatant agenda pedding by the BBC, sat down with Abdullah to explore various topics.
A video titled “Omar Abdullah on being Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir and its many challenges,” was published on the BBC’s official YouTube channel on 19th February. As expected, the exchange was dominated by Sackur’s condescending remarks which appeared to reflect his personal views disguised as inquiries.
The host of HARDtalk reminded Abdullah of his political detention post the repeal of Article 370 after which the latter recounted the past few years along with his electoral victories and losses as he asserted that “nothing is static in politics.” However, Sucker was quick to point out that even the leader’s feelings are not static because, despite his claims to the contrary, he chose to participate in the assembly elections and even brought up his earlier comments regarding the same.
Declaring Jammu and Kashmir a union territory in August 2019 was referred to by Sackur as a “demotion of its status” and he questioned Abdullah about his change of mind to which the latter replied, “People asked if the assembly wasn’t good enough for me then how could it be good enough for them either to contest or cast their votes and I didn’t have an answer to it.” However, the answer seemed to infuriate the host because he wanted Abdullah to boycott the elections.
Abdullah reasoned that it would have been a loss for them rather than New Delhi since there wouldn’t have been any representatives from Kashmir in the assembly. Sackur was clearly unsatisfied with the counter and called Abdullah’s involvement in the assembly elections as a “humiliating exercise.” He even accused him of being a proxy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is carrying out the government’s agenda in the valley and “allowing them to do what they will with Jammu and Kashmir.”
Sackur seemed to have substantial reservations about the development and progress undertaken in the valley in recent years and a steep fall in terrrosism – which was only feasible after abrogation of Article 370. The Modi government’s only goal, as demonstrated by his administration’s actions, is to improve the lives of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Nevertheless, the BBC couldn’t grasp this straightforward reality, as it must adhere to its own narrative.
Hence, the host only delved into rhetorics propagated by the Western media instead of focusing on the facts. Furthermore, his implication that Jammu and Kashmir is not merely another region of India but rather a distinct territory where Delhi functions as an ‘outside’ force, was quite apparent. He claimed that senior leaders of National Conference were unhappy with Abdullah’s “soft approach” which they deem incorrect and pushed that he should strongly condemn the alleged “demotion.”
BBC’s odd obsession with Artcile 370
In an attempt to criticize Abdullah for dropping his plan to struggle for the reinstatement of Article 370, Sackur quoted him and stated, “Hoping for the restoration of Article 370 from the people who snatched it will be foolish.” The latter, however, denied the charge and talked about the resolutions that his government adopted in the assembly. Sackur appeared to be fixated on Article 370 and seemed quite eager for its reintroduction in Jammu and Kashmir. The BBC, for whatever reason, seems to be unable to accept a peaceful and prosperous valley devoid of gunfire and cries of jihad.
Notably, Sackur passed a similar remark about the alleged disappointment of legal scholars with his stance on Article 370 in the interview with Chandrachud. He asked, “Article 370 was part of the Constitution, which guaranteed the special status, the autonomy of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, now that had been out the place of the very inception of the modern state of India. You agreed that the government had a right to abrogate Article 370. Many legal scholars were deeply disappointed with your decision because they felt you had failed to uphold the Constitution. Explained to me why you took the decision you did.”
A judge cannot defend or criticize their own rulings, he answered and then explained that Article 370 was intended to eventually disappear and merge with the Constitution. “Was 75 years was too short a period to abrogate such a provision,” Chandrachud added.
Abdullah praised PM Modi for his efforts to bring Delhi and Kashmir closer – not just in miles, but in minds – three years after the latter made a commitment to bridge both “Dilli ki doori” and “dil ki doori.” PM Modi also complimented Abdullah’s photographic skiils. The development transpired last month during the inauguration of the Z-Morh Tunnel in Sonamarg. Sackur, predictably, also had an issue with their bonhomie and voiced his disapproval by saying, “It sounds like you and Modi are becoming pals.”
However, Abdullah termed it as “working in a congenial relationship” which shouldn’t be misunderstood and reiterated his opposition to the Bharatiya Janata Party and their policies, but streesed on maintaining a “good working relationship” with the centre. Sackur was visible upset when Abdullah told him that he would have an amicable relationship with PM Modi despite knowing that he would never repeal Article 370 because other issues pertaining to Jammu and Kashmir are also very important. The former looked more eager for Article 370 at this point than Abdullah, whose entire political approach is predicated on it.
BBC wants Public Safety Act removed
Following his unwarranted attack on PM Modi, Sackur accused the Delhi-appointed lieutenant governor of having more power than the chief minister and even commanding the police. He then stated that people believe that Abdullah has no real authority and hence cannot fulfil his promises including revocation of Public Safety Act. The Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 is a preventive detention law under which a person is taken into custody to prevent them from acting harmfully against “the security of the region or the maintenance of the public order.”
He then accused Abdullah of not keeping his word as the latter conveyed that some vows can only be completed after statehood is granted to Jammu and Kashmir. Sackur then charged that it made him “look powerless to his own people” but Abdullah argued that the people of Jammu and Kashmir are not ignorant and are well aware of the situation on the ground. He added that his party was elected by them to work with the government of India and fulfil its commitments.
According to Sackur, the Public Safety Act was passed by the National Conference, which has been headed by Abdullah’s father and grandfather for many years. The law has been used to imprison thousands of local inhabitants without a trial and now he will have the same authority. “So you are enjoying the fact that you are powerless and if this detention process continues it won’t be your fault,” he responded bitterly when Abdullah pointed out that the police are under the LG.
Additionally, when Sackur accused him of using the act while he was previously in power from 2010 to 2014, Abdullah emphasized that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is different from the rest of India and that it is a sensitive province that has not historically been peaceful. The interviewer intended to turn a blind eye in an attempt to give it a different color, even though the well-known facts regarding the issue of jihad, separatism and Pakistan-based terrorism should have been ample reason for him to comprehend the significance of the act.
Abdullah also highlighted that the act is not necessary and can be removed since the situation in Kashmir has been impoved. Sackur went on to mention recent violent incidents including the grenade attack and killings of six construction workers by terrorists in the valley and contended that people in Delhi have been stating that things were better under the LG. He even cited former chief minsiter Farooq Abdullah who blamed Pakistan for these terror strikes in Jammu and Kashmir and “warned the country to put and end to its nefarious actions as well as find a way to be friends otherwise issues will arise.”
Abdullah replied that Pakistan never stopped “meddling” into India’s affairs when asked about his opinion on his father’s statements. “It will be foolish for any of us to suggest that the twrrorism in Jammu and Kashmir has been purely indigenious and without any outside assistance,” he added. He also supported a friendly working relationship between New Delhi and Islmabad. However, he confirmed that there is no such scope at the moment with the current terror attacks including on security forces and construction camps in Jammu and Kashmir.
It’s interesting to note that there was no mention of attacks on Hindus who were singled out for only because of their faith including during 2024 Reasi attack as though their lives were less important than others.
Is there no development in Jammu and Kashmir?
Sackur stated that abrogation on Article 370 “was a pathway to modernization, stronger economic growth and development in the territory,” per Modi government and inquired if they were able to achieve what they promised in the past 5 years. Abdullah claimed that it has not been done and that his government will accomplish this by introducing new measures including fresh industrial and tourism policies. He added that he would also complete the projects he began when serving as chief minister earlier to produce hydroelectricity.
On the other hand, government statistics revealed that the total number of visitors in 2024 was approximately 2.95 million, a sharp rise from the 2.71 million in 2023 and the 2.67 million in 2022. Better road connectivity, greater scope for tourism, and focus on agriculture, especially the cultivation of fruits such as apples, pears, and walnuts which are major exports from the region are the primary drivers of the economic growth of the valley, with recent reports revealing a significant rise in the Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP).
Sackur talked about how young Kashmiris have voiced their concerns regarding 60% reserved jobs and mentioned the promises in National Conference’s election manifesto to which Abdullah responded that the matter is under consideration in high court and “a cabinet subcommittee has been tasked with reaching out to various stakeholders and explore options.” The former insisted that the court might overrule any decision made by Abdullah’s government even when he assured that they would work things out.
Sackur seemed to have serious problems with the Indian judiciary. He even highlighted the disagreements within the National Conference and asked, “Is there any part of you that is beginning to think after few months of chief ministership in this reduced union territory status rather than full statehood with autonomy that you have made a terrible mistake and you are in a very stocky position.”
His intentions came full circle when he again attempted to stress that contesting assembly elections was a terrible idea for Abdullah and pushed him to share his opinion. Abdullah stated that there are moments when he questions himself but he will never give up or walk away and try to do his best because he has been selected by the people for 5 years.
Sackur once more tried to present Jammu & Kashmir as an unusual place because to its predominantly Muslim population and Abdullah’s status as one of the most powerful Muslim leaders in the nation. Moreover, the interview would have been incomplete without the introduction of the word “majoritarianism” in relation to the ruling saffron party and the former akin to his Western counterparts did not disappoint. “Majoritarianism has been used to capture the degree to which the BJP wants to use its authority in Delhi, in the Parliament to impose its will on the country. How alarmed are you as a Muslim by what you see happening,” he asked.
Kashmir is undeniably distinct because the people brutally exterminated its own minority population, elevating its Muslim-majority status which happened during the National Conference’s administration. However, this particular truth found no place in the entire interview as if the genocide of the Kashmiri Hindus had no affect on the region.
Abdullah played right into his hands and alleged, “It is worrying. I have always made this point that just because the BJP wants to show it doesn’t believe in appeasing Muslims and they have always accused the Congress of doing so. The BJP wants to show they are different. However, to systematically target Muslims to be able to prove that you don’t appease is wrong. India, at least for now has the word secular in its Constitution.”
BJP releases its manifesto before every elections and people vote for it. It’s not a hidden exercise. Why is the will of the majority referred to as “majoritarianism” when the government, does not agree with left-liberals? Didn’t Britain exist from the Eurepoean Union as people voted for it even though there were those who opposed the move. Was it “majoritarianism” then? These journalists engage in meaningless political rhetoric and whataboutry instead of discussing facts and offering data to expose the policy-level discrimination against Indian Muslims by the Modi government. However, they cannot even if they tried because the discrimination is only in their propaganda and not in reality.
Propaganda against Indian institutions
Sackur then charged Abdullah of putting too much faith in the Indian institutions like the Parliament and the judiciary as an ultimate protection, according to some Muslims in the country despite his passionate statements. He even towed the Islamist line and added to the propaganda around Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and dubbed it anti-Muslim. He accused Abdullah of telling them to have faith in Indian democarcy and the Parliament.
Notably, Sackur had even asked Chandrachud if, as a Hindu, he sought religious guidance before making decisions in court. “Stephen, if you look at social media and try and derive what was said by a judge from social media, you’ll get the wrong answers. What I said was this. I was asked specifically, I make no bones of the fact that I’m a man of faith. Our Constitution does not require you to be an atheist to be an independent judge and I value my faith. But what my faith teaches me is the universality of religion and irrespective of who comes to my court and I dare say that applies to other judges in the Supreme Court as well, irrespective of who comes to you as a litigant, you dispense equal and even-handed justice,” the latter replied.
Chandrachud further conveyed, “And therefore, what I said was this, judicial creativity is not just about intellectual ability and skill. It’s also about perception. And we work in areas of conflict. We work in areas of intense conflict. Now, within that area of conflict, how do you find a sense of calm, of equanimity? Different judges have different ways to approach that need for calm and equanimity. For me, My time in meditation in prayer is very important. But my time in meditation and prayer teaches me to be even-handed to every religious group and community in the country.”
Sackur not only publicly voiced his disapproval of the Indian judiciary but he also challenged their adherence to their Hindu religious beliefs and attempted to cast aspersions on their ability to render fair decisions because of the same.
“What other alternative is there for the 15% of the population. Can someone point it out? If you cannot trust your Parliament or political parties other than the BJP that rely on Muslim votes to get seats and are current allies of the saffron party. If you cannot rely on them to see folly of their ways, if you cannot rely on the courts to keep such forces in check then what other option do 15% of the population have? Because they certainly cannot rise up in arms against the majority of the population. I won’t for a moment suggest that they should look for alternate homes in the neighbourhood. So, what other else is there other than to make use of the democratic options that are avaialble to us,” the chief minister countered.
The host dubbed it as “potentially bleak outlook” for Indian Muslims. However, Abdullah reaffirmed his trust in Indian courts and Parliament to deliver justice. Sackur was dissatisfied when Abdullah did not share his belief that Indian Muslims should not have faith in any of the nation’s institutions. The colonial mindset, which split India on religious lines for its own gain has not changed much and continues to rear its ugly head in one form or the other, even after several decades. Does BBC want Indian Muslims to revolt against the Indian state and Hindus and create unrest in the country?
Sackur concluded the interview by alleging that the “trajectory is not great in Jammu and Kashmir” as he asked his guest about the next 10 years. Abdullah refused to make any declaration considering the unpredictable and drastic changes the area has undergone since the two sat for an interview a decade ago.
It is important to highlight that the United Kingdom has been grappling with the repercussions of the Pakistani grooming gangs and the apparent protection they received from politicians and law enforcement. Meanwhile, the BBC has prioritized interference in India’s affairs through purported interviews aimed at promoting its own perspectives. Is this a reflection of the British mouthpiece’s inability to counter the incompetence of its government in safeguarding its young girls and minors from predators? Hence, it has opted to criticize India rather than addressing its own, far more severe and alarming issues.
