Farooq Abdullah Blames Nehru-Era ‘Blunder’ for Modi Govt’s Weaponising ECI

Srinagar: Former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister and National Conference (NC) president Farooq Abdullah on Sunday launched one of his sharpest attacks yet on the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), arguing that the country is paying the price for a historic “blunder” committed in the early years of the Republic.

Speaking at the ‘Halla Bol’ conclave in Srinagar, with senior Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar seated beside him, Abdullah said the Jawaharlal Nehru government’s failure to make the ECI “completely autonomous” had opened the door for political interference that, according to him, has now reached unprecedented levels.

“The biggest mistake the Nehru administration committed was not to make the Election Commission completely autonomous. We are suffering the consequences of that today,” Abdullah said, adding that an independent poll body would have prevented the “distortions” he believes are visible in the present system.

Abdullah accused the Narendra Modi government of reshaping the appointment process to ensure partisan control over the institution.

“Modi Sahab appointed two members from the government and one from the opposition.

They will select the Election Commissioner. Tell me, when the majority is on one side, what will the opposition leader do? The decision will be of the majority,” he said.

He alleged that this process enabled the elevation of “a person who was working in his office as a secretary” to the post of Chief Election Commissioner, claiming the official was “openly working for the BJP…the Sangh.”

“This has been proven.

Everybody knows about it,” Abdullah said, citing a report in The Indian Express that detailed alleged irregularities in voter list deletions.

According to Abdullah, the deletions disproportionately targeted Muslims. “The Muslims were picked one by one and removed.

See the height of it. A prominent lawyer like (Kapil) Sibal was also removed,” he said. “Didn’t they remove large numbers of voters? Their objective is to stay in power till eternity and for that they need such people who will help them.”

Abdullah also broadened his critique to the wider political climate, warning that democratic institutions were being hollowed out through “systematic manipulation.”

He said India was witnessing a “dangerous centralisation of power” in which agencies meant to safeguard constitutional values were being “bent to serve political interests.”

He cautioned that the erosion of institutional independence—whether of the ECI, investigative agencies, or federal structures—posed a direct threat to India’s democratic fabric.

“If institutions fall, nations fall,” he said, urging political parties and civil society to “speak up before silence becomes permanent.”

In a separate but equally pointed intervention, Abdullah turned his attention to Jammu and Kashmir’s political trajectory, arguing that the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019 was not an abrupt shock but the culmination of decisions made years earlier.

Without naming the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Abdullah suggested that those who chose to ally with the BJP “despite clear warnings” must accept their share of responsibility.

“Ask those who are responsible for this, who helped in removing it,” he said.

“Omar Abdullah and the Congress had cautioned against bringing the BJP into power and placing trust in the party.

Those who proceeded despite the warnings paved the way,” he added.

The PDP formed a coalition government with the BJP in 2015, a partnership Abdullah implied had created the political conditions necessary for the BJP to execute its long-standing ideological goal.

“This was their demand,” he said, asserting that the removal of Article 370 was central to the BJP’s political agenda and not an unforeseen development.

The former chief minister also questioned why Article 370 continued to be labelled a “temporary provision” decades after the possibility of a UN‑supervised plebiscite had effectively ended.

He argued that the original constitutional arrangement—crafted amid unresolved questions of accession and the proposed referendum—had been steadily eroded as successive Indian governments extended central laws to the state.

The abrogation, he said, was the “final act” in a long process of diluting J&K autonomy.

“The progressive extension of Indian laws narrowed the scope of the original constitutional relationship,” he said, adding that the temporary designation of Article 370 had been used to justify repeated encroachments.

Abdullah maintained that disagreements between India and Pakistan over the terms of the proposed plebiscite—particularly the role of an external administrator—had ensured the referendum never materialised, leaving J&K in a constitutional limbo that was eventually exploited.