JOIN USThe grounds for the detention of former Jammu & Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah under the Public Safety Act (PSA) are as contradictory and unconvincing as those for the continued lockdown in the state. Dr Abdullah is a member of parliament from Kashmir, was chief minister of the state thrice and was union minister and a member of the Rajya Sabha. He was an ally of the BJP during the first NDA government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The 82-year-old leader is the most prominent politician in Kashmir and was rightly considered to be its most important ‘nationalist’ face. It is incredible that such a leader has been detained under the draconian Public Safety Act, under which he can be held without trial for two years. Detention under the PSA means that Abdullah is taken to be a hardcore militant, a terrorist or a national security threat. Even the most implausible reasons given by the government for its crackdown in the state would not justify branding Abdullah a terrorist or threat to India.
No such explanation of the action would carry any conviction. In August, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had told the Lok Sabha that Abdullah was not under detention and that he was free to move around. But he has actually been under house arrest for a month, as are others like former chief ministers Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti and many other leaders. Before his detention last month, Abdullah had even met Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leading a National Conference delegation. If Abdullah was not a threat and was even free to move about one month ago, what could he have done in the one month he was under detention which has made him a terrorist who had to be arrested and held without trial under the most stringent law in the state? The law had ironically been put in place by his father Sheikh Abdullah for action against timber smugglers.
The possible reason is that the government wanted to foil a habeas corpus petition filed by ADMK leader Vaiko for production of Abdullah in court. The detention under the PSA happened just before the court was to take up the petition. This is wrong and unfair, and it is unfortunate that even the court did not see through the chicanery. The actions and explanations of the government need to be credible and acceptable even in the most difficult situations. That is a democratic responsibility. Abdullah’s detention is wrong and arbitrary and most indefensible. What is the government going to achieve by acting against moderate politicians of the state, especially one who has even risked his life fighting militants and anti-nationals?