It is not particularly surprising that Syed Mir Qasim has finally quit the Congress (I). He had been ill-at-ease in the party for quite a long time. Indeed, he had made no secret of his feeling that Mrs. Gandhi did not seek his advice even in respect of developments in Jammu and Kashmir, and that when he offered it on his own initiative, she did not heed it. The issue had come to a head at the time of the recent election to the state vidhan sabha when he had refused to canvass support for Congress (I) candidates and his critics in the organisation had more or less openly accused him of betrayal. Not only had a Union cabinet minister, Mr. Buta Singh, then demanded his expulsion from the party, there was widespread speculation that Mrs. Gandhi would soon take disciplinary action against him. Such a move on her part would have been uncharacteristic of her. Characteristically she chose to wait, perhaps hoping that Mr. Qasim would find his position untenable and would himself leave the party. He has done precisely that.
While announcing his resignation from the Congress (I), the Mir has not limited his criticism of Mrs. Gandhi to her recent decision to confront the National Conference at the hustings to Jammu and Kashmir. He has widened it to include her style of leadership. He would have been well advised to resist this temptation. It is only too easy to attack Mrs. Gandhi on the ground that the top Congress (I) decision-making bodies – the working committee and the parliamentary board – have been reduced to a one-woman band. But the criticism, however justified in itself, raises other issues. For instance, since her style of leadership has been in evidence since the Congress split in 1969, why has the Mir gone along with it all these years? Would he have raised this issue if his proposal in favour of an electoral alliance with the National Conference had been accepted by her? Equally pertinently, why have members of the working committee and the parliamentary board been so unwilling to assert themselves? In any case, Jammu and Kashmir has been the main bone of contention between Mrs. Gandhi and Mir Qasim and he should have stuck to it.
The differences between the Congress (I) president and the Kashmir leader go back some years. While as prime minister Mrs. Gandhi was somewhat sceptical about Sheikh Abdullah and regarded it necessary to keep him unsure of his position, the Mir was convinced that the Sheikh could be trusted and that, in any case, his position in the Kashmir valley was so unassailable as to leave New Delhi no choice but to keep him in good humour. Mrs. Gandhi did not accept the latter proposition either and lent her support to those in the state unit of the Congress (I) who believed that they could challenge the National Conference. These were fundamental differences of approach and they were bound to surface again after the death of the Sheikh once it became clear that the Mir believed that the Congress (I) should concede a monopoly or a near monopoly of popular influence in the valley to Dr. Farooq Abdullah. And they did, with a vengeance, the result being the Mir’s decision to leave the party.
Mir Qasim is an honourable man. Unlike many other public figures, he is honest and frank. He is genuinely concerned with preservation of values in the country’s public life. Witness his letter to Mrs. Gandhi on the findings of the Election Commission that the Congress (I) had been guilty of capturing booths in the Garhwal by-election in the summer of 1980. He is not a power hungry politician as is evident from his role in the agreement between Mrs. Gandhi and the Sheikh in 1976.The agreement involved his resignation as chief minister. His secular credentials too cannot be in doubt. But it is possible that he took a wrong stand in respect of the recent vidhan sabha elections in the state. While he may not be aware of its implications, his proposal was tantamount to saying that just because the population in the valley is predominantly Muslim, the Congress (I) should not challenge the National Conference there because otherwise the NC leadership would feel driven to take a communalist extremist stance.
Many self-proclaimed secularists have endorsed the Mir’s stand. But we have differed and we feel vindicated by the outcome of the poll. The Congress (I) won a substantial vote in the valley. In our opinion, a different outcome would also not have invalidated Mrs. Gandhi’s decision. For one thing, Dr. Abdullah had left her no option by refusing to discuss division of seats in the valley. For another she could not possibly have accepted the Congress (I) in Jammu and Kashmir was entitled only to seek the Hindu vote. The all-India consequences of such an admission could have been disastrous. But however justified her rejection of the Mir’s approach, she owed it to herself to have shown him the necessary courtesy. She should have met him even if the parting of ways had become unavoidable and she did not need Mr. CM Stephen’s peculiar eloquence to defend her position.