The Congress leadership in New Delhi, if not in Srinagar, should have resisted the temptation to use the tragic murder of Mr. Mhatre in Britain as an opportunity to continue its campaign of vilification against the Jammu and Kashmir chief minister, Dr. Farooq Abdullah. For all that we know, the hitherto unknown “Kashmir Liberation Army” may be responsible for the dastardly deed. But it would obviously be rather rash for us to take that for granted. In fairness to the British authorities, and this country, the Congress leadership should have waited for the investigation to proceed to a point where the identity of the killers had been established beyond reasonable doubt. Two issues are involved in these investigations. First, whether the so-called Kashmir Liberation Army in fact exists in Britain and whether it is indeed responsible for the kidnapping and the murder. Secondly, whether this organisation has any links with the better known Kashmir Liberation Front and whether the front leadership in any way encouraged the “army” to perpetrate this dastardly deed. The second question assumes special importance in view of Mr. Mohammed Shafi Qureshi’s charge that Dr. Abdullah has links with the front. To point this out is not to endorse the allegation which, on the face of it, is incredible but to emphasize that the Congress leaders could have held their fire unless the facts were established.
One of the general secretaries of the AICC, Mr. Moopanar, has pushed the logic of guilt by association even farther than Mr Qureshi. He has said that Mr. Mhatre’s murder is the “evil fruit” of Dr Abdullah’s policy of “befriending communal and secessionist elements in Jammu and Kashmir.” While Mr. Qureshi made one jump – linking the obscure Kashmir Liberation Army with the front, Mr. Moopanar has made two – linking the front with the “communal and secessionist elements” within the state and the front with the “army”. Again to point this out is not to endorse Mr. Moopanar’s charge that Dr. Abdullah is pursuing the policy of “befriending communal and secessionist elements” in the state but to emphasize that these Mccarthyite tactics ill-serve the country in such a complicated and delicate situation as the present one.
Let us assume for the moment that some Kashmiri extremists are in fact responsible for Mr. Mhatre’s murder. Surely this cannot end our dilemma. We are immediately face to face with the problem of the motivations and calculations of the assassins. If the Congress leaders had posed this question to themselves, they would have discovered that it is not easy to even speculate on it. The murderers could not possibly have calculated that such an action will frighten and demoralize the Indian government, or strengthen the position of either Dr. Abdullah or the secessionists in the state in their defiance of the Centre, or promote their “cause” by focusing the world’s attention on it. It can be argued that the criminals are immature youth who did not worry about the consequences of their action. But in that case, we are not entitled to draw any large conclusion.
This too cannot be the end of the matter. We have at least to speculate on what encouraged the young men to kill an innocent junior official. Again, it is not an easy task. If it is possible to argue, as Mr. Moopanar and Mr. Qureshi have done, that Dr. Abdullah’s policy of “befriending the communal and secessionist elements” in the state has encouraged the desperadoes in the United Kingdom, it is equally feasible to suggest that the conflict between the Congress, headed by Mrs. Gandhi herself, and the National Conference, presided over by Dr. Abdullah, could have led the extremists in Britain to believe that their action would endear them to the people in the valley a majority of whom doubtless support the latter. In reality such exercises in speculation are extremely dangerous and must therefore be avoided.
Finally, assuming for the sake of argument that Dr. Abdullah maintains links with the front in Britain, how does it follow that the front is responsible for the killing and Dr. Abdullah for instigating its leaders to instigate someone else to do the dirty job? What would he have expected to gain by it? Or is he a mad man who does not calculate the possible consequences of his action? Incidentally, when did Mr. Qureshi discover Dr. Abdullah’s links with the front in the UK? If he claims that he knew of these connections earlier, several other questions would arise. Did he inform the authorities? Did they check the accuracy of the charge? If they found some evidence in its support, why has Mrs. Gandhi not taken action as Prime Minister? No, the whole thing is too bizarre for words.