In a candid chat with Kashmir Magazine Editor Mohd Aslam Bhat, Apni Party President Altaf Bukhari drops political caution and speaks about mistakes made, opportunities missed, and the hard lessons learned since entering electoral politics. From the use of fear as a political tool to the need for collective engagement with Delhi, Bukhari lays bare his assessment of Kashmir’s political reality and the road ahead.
Excerpts
KM: Mr. Bukhari, thank you for joining us. You have been a base leader, a party leader, a cabinet minister, and have seen much politically. How do you assess the current political situation in Jammu and Kashmir?
AB: At this time, we have to acknowledge that this is our state. Our people have experienced many eras, some marked by political mismanagement, some by societal challenges, and some by natural difficulties. These experiences have led to widespread disappointment, which I observe again after 2019.
KM: Could you elaborate?
AB: On 5 August 2019, a day we now call a black day, our identity and rights were stripped away. Ordinary citizens were punished for sins they didn’t commit, while the political leadership’s mistakes were overlooked. When elections were held in 2024, which were approved by the Supreme Court, people hoped to form a government representing their mandate and to end the governor’s rule that had been in place since 2018. Yet, after 14 months, the people are disappointed again. Some even feel that perhaps Governor’s rule was better than the current government.
KM: Who do you hold responsible for this situation?
AB: It is easy to make allegations. One could say the National Conference is responsible, and to some extent, that is true. But I blame all political parties, except one or two. In 2024, during elections, parties made promises that were impossible to fulfill. They raised people’s expectations beyond reality. claims about restoring Article 370, statehood, and opportunities for youth were all beyond their power. Some things could only be done by Parliament or through the Supreme Court, and those avenues were lost.
KM: Speaking of elections, the National Conference recently won three seats in the Rajya Sabha elections. Does that reflect continued public acceptance?
AB: This is a very good question. The National Conference must answer why it lost the fourth seat. Out of 88 assembly seats, 28 were with the BJP. Sixty were supposedly against the BJP. Under the quota system, all four Rajya Sabha seats should have gone to the National Conference. Instead, some representatives voted in favor of the BJP, revealing their true allegiance. So, it’s not a matter of popularity but political maneuvering.
KM: What about Budgam, where the National Conference contested recently?
AB: Is there a lack of acceptance for the National Conference there? No. There were three leaders of one sect: Mr. Agha Hassan’s great-grandson, followers of Mr. Ruhullah, and Maulana Imran Ansari. Imran Ansari contributed 4,500 votes, while previously Mr. Agha Muntazir had received 18,000 votes. Today, the winning candidate got 22,000 votes, showing Imran Ansari’s influence. People’s choices reflect their awareness, they know whom they are voting for. Sunni votes, in particular, still largely support the National Conference.
KM: Could you comment on the historical political dynamics and coalition governments?
AB: Yes. After 2002, people rejected coalition governance and gave a clear mandate to one party, hoping the National Conference would alleviate their struggles. The PDP deceived Azad Sahib and ousted him, the coalition with Congress in 2009 was difficult but ran, and in 2015, the PDP formed a government with the BJP, lasting only three years. People’s anger on 5 August 2019 against Delhi influenced their voting decisions, especially for candidates seen as aligned with Delhi. Democracy gives people the control to make such decisions.
KM: Mr. Bukhari, how do you assess the political role of Agha Ruhullah and Imran Raza Ansari? You mentioned earlier that their role was significant.
AB: Look, I will never attribute this to the PDP’s organisational strength. You saw the 2024 Parliamentary elections. The PDP candidate, Mr. Fayyaz, secured hardly 600–800 votes. That clearly reflected the party’s vote bank.
After that, the son of a major religious leader came forward and secured around 18,000 votes. This time again, with the support of two Aghas and Maulana Imran Raza Ansari, his tally increased further. Even earlier, when Sajjad Ghani Lone contested parliamentary elections, he too benefited from similar religious support.
As Mr. Ruhullah himself has said, many of the votes that went to the National Conference were actually his followers’ votes. These are religious followers, and we cannot deny that influence.
KM: You have recently intensified public outreach. What prompted this move?
AB: You know, even in 2019, immediately after the developments, we were deeply concerned. When we were sidelined politically, we realised that people’s problems still needed to be addressed. But the solution was not in the hands of the Governor, it was in Delhi’s hands, with the Government of India. That is why we opened back-channel communication. We had nothing to bargain or “sell.” Since 1947, governments here came to power by offering something to Delhi. We had nothing left to offer, everything had already been conceded by others.
At that time, the situation was grim. Shops were shut, transport was halted, youth were detained, elders were lodged in distant jails. People were anxious and fearful about the future. We stood with them, shared their pain, and tried to bring some calm and relief.
KM: That approach invited criticism. How do you reflect on that phase now?
AB: We paid a heavy price for it, personally and politically. We were not in power, yet we put our reputation and credibility at stake. It took four to five months of sustained engagement with Delhi to secure the release of detained youth and elders. By God’s grace, around 31–32 people were released. After 5 August, Delhi had opened the door for unrestricted land purchase and jobs by outsiders. We managed to narrow that opening through the domicile law, fixing a 15-year criterion. We didn’t have 50 MLAs to force decisions, but we used our political voice effectively. Unfortunately, other traditional leaders remained silent, waiting for unrest instead of acting in time. Had we not intervened, within five years tens of thousands of outsiders could have settled here, and thousands of vacant jobs would have been filled by non-locals.
KM: Why do you think people did not fully acknowledge this effort?
AB: We couldn’t sell it politically. The domicile order came on April 1, 2020. Just days earlier, on March 28, COVID restrictions were imposed. At that time, survival was the only priority. No one wanted political announcements, they wanted to stay alive. Political activity resumed only in October, during the DDC elections. We opened our office then and secured around six percent votes. Yet no single party opposed us directly because they knew none of them could win alone. That is why they formed the PAGD alliance, an alliance I believe emotionally misled the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
KM: You’ve been accused of aligning with Delhi, while others claim moral opposition. How do you respond?
AB: These very parties branded us criminals for engaging with Delhi. Yet in June 2020, when they were invited, they all rushed to meet the Prime Minister. We meet openly, in daylight, without shame. Delhi is not an alien power. It is the national government of India, elected by the people. Jammu and Kashmir cannot function unless its government works constructively with Delhi. I do not blame the people. I give them full marks. They voted emotionally, not wrongly. But emotions alone cannot deliver results. Fourteen months have passed, can anyone say youth detainees were released, or dignity restored? Our manifesto focused on real issues: a general pardon after a cut-off date, smooth verification, passports, and jobs for youth. These remain the core problems.
KM: Mr. Bukhari, when elections were announced for Budgam, your senior party leader and likely nominee, Muntazir Mohideen, chose to contest as an independent. Why did he take that decision?
AB: Muntazir Sahib decided to stand as an independent candidate, believing that the local environment, personal relationships, and his standing in the area might attract voters who did not wish to support any political party. That was his assessment. Whether it worked or not is a different matter. I would have been happy had he been given the opportunity to represent the people through the party platform. Perhaps later there were second thoughts, either on his part or among those around him. I will not comment further. I wish him the best. He is a good candidate and a good comrade. But elections are about choices. As a political party, we are not running an NGO. We contested elections, we fought them seriously. Even if we did not secure many votes, we kept the party alive. Unlike others whose organisations exist only on paper, we remained in the field. We contested elections in Jammu as well, despite limited electoral success. That is the responsibility of a political party to participate, strengthen cadre, and build an organisation.
KM: When your party was formed in 2020, there was considerable enthusiasm. Now, some believe that people are drifting away. How do you see this?
AB: After the 2024 parliamentary elections, where we did not perform well, some people did leave. One individual left because he wanted to contest as a candidate. He may have had the stature, but once a party takes a decision, everyone must align with it. We also made certain wrong decisions. I admit that. At times, we supported individuals who later proved undeserving of that support. I take responsibility for those mistakes.
From South Kashmir, a leader from Shopian left due to differences with leaders from the Pir Panchal region. After that, no major departures took place. As for Muntazir Sahib, even today, I believe he has his own stature. Not everyone succeeds electorally, but that does not mean they have no role in politics or public life.
KM: There is public criticism that leaders blame constraints while enjoying a full mandate. How do you see this argument?
AB: Let me say this clearly: when people give you a full mandate, delivery becomes your responsibility. People will question you if you fail. It is easy for those outside power to point fingers like someone walking while another rides a horse. The present leadership should learn from their predecessors’ experience and focus on making governance effective. Misleading people is dangerous. Symbolic gestures may look impressive, but do not radicalise people or raise false hopes. Emotional slogans have repeatedly proven hollow.
People have now understood this. I strongly believe that in the future, public mandate will turn against traditional political parties and family-centric politics, because these parties have failed to deliver on their promises.
KM: The PDP has won the Budgam seat and has become more active on the ground. Is the timing significant?
AB: For the past few days, PDP activity has increased. We, however, began our outreach nearly 20 days earlier. We have consistently engaged with people and communicated our agenda, including discussions with the Union Home Minister over the past month. This has always been part of our programme.
If PDP has now accepted the idea that Delhi must engage in dialogue, that is a positive development. When political parties agree on constructive points, it becomes easier for Delhi to take decisions. This is not about credit. If PDP raises a good issue, we do not hesitate to acknowledge it. Similarly, if they find merit in our programme and support it, that is also welcome. Political consensus on key issues is beneficial for the people.
KM: Since you have been active on the ground, what kind of public response are you receiving?]
AB: There are two or three important things. Earlier, people accused us of cowardice. They forgot that we were engaging with the Union government at a time when everyone else had gone silent.
KM: Mr. Bukhari, you often say that politics in Kashmir has thrived on fear. What do you mean by that?
AB: You cannot keep people away forever. In Kashmir, fear has repeatedly been used as a political tool. We saw this clearly in 2014, when people were told, “If you don’t vote for us, the BJP will come to power.” People voted out of fear and later saw those same leaders engaging with the BJP. That is why such narratives no longer work. Today, people understand the reality of so-called A-team, B-team, and C-team politics. Political groups use each other according to convenience and time. But those who genuinely want to work for the people must do so by engaging with Delhi. There is no escape from that reality.
KM: Why do you believe engagement with Delhi is unavoidable?
AB: Jammu and Kashmir is a sensitive region. We have China on one border and Pakistan on the other. The security situation remains fragile. Alongside this, we must fix our economy, revive tourism, and improve livelihoods. None of this can happen in isolation. At the same time, it is also true that the BJP is perceived as anti-Muslim. In a Muslim-majority region like Kashmir, no political party can openly align with the BJP and expect public support. Even for us, if we formally join hands with them, we will lose our support base. That is political reality.
KM: Since forming your party, what challenges or mistakes do you acknowledge?
AB: Absolutely, there have been many. We have learned hard lessons. One major mistake was supporting individuals who lacked understanding, credibility, or commitment. We supported some such people in Assembly and Parliamentary elections, and that was wrong. Going forward, our approach is clear. We will neither blindly support individuals nor depend on others for support. We will support our own people and our own community, while building a system based on honesty and transparency, where our children are not discriminated against, not afraid to step out of their homes, and not forced to leave India out of fear or hopelessness.
KM: You have made repeated appeals for dialogue. What exactly are you asking for?
AB: I want to make a sincere appeal to the Prime Minister: before it is too late, initiate a meaningful dialogue with the people of Jammu and Kashmir, especially the youth. Our youth, including those living in different parts of India, are going through immense distress and insecurity. Their safety and dignity must be ensured. Dialogue is the only way forward. I also appeal to Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to reconsider the domicile issue. Extend the eligibility period. If 50 years is not possible, at least make it 35 years. This is critical for protecting local rights.
KM: You also raised concerns about unemployment and public welfare.
AB: Yes. Unemployed youth, daily wagers, widows, and economically weak families need immediate relief. Electricity is a basic necessity. The government has promised 200 units of free electricity, this is entirely within the elected government’s authority, not the Lieutenant Governor’s. If there is a disagreement with the LG, then follow it up. There should be no hesitation in knocking on any door for the sake of the people. We are servants of the people, there is no shame in seeking solutions.
Statements and press releases achieve nothing. We saw recently how delays in file movement caused 39 percent of youth to miss an exam. That is an irreparable loss. I sympathise with those youth and pray they get another opportunity but that will only happen if political parties act together.
KM: Are you suggesting broader political consensus?
AB: Absolutely. It is easy to point fingers. I urge Omar Abdullah to try again. If needed, call an all-party meeting. We are ready to go anywhere, anytime, for the sake of our youth. On behalf of my party, I say this clearly.
Before escalating issues to the Prime Minister, the government should first take all political parties on board. Collective effort strengthens credibility and outcomes. The credit will still go to the government if people benefit.
KM: What role should the Lieutenant Governor play?
AB: Whether we like it or not, the LG has experience. That experience should be used constructively to convince Delhi to engage with the people of Jammu and Kashmir. We need restoration of statehood, revival of tourism, protection of livelihoods, and solutions to issues like unemployment, age limits, reservations, and daily survival. None of this is possible without the Prime Minister’s direct involvement.
KM: Finally, how do you define politics today?
AB: For me, politics is not about slogans or power, it is about what is good for the people. If going to Delhi invites labels, then take everyone along. When all parties go together, no one can call anyone an agent. We did not enter politics for personal comfort. We entered it for the people, who still have expectations from us. In 75 years, where do we stand today? On many indices, we are falling behind. We must reflect honestly. Look at Ladakh, just 3.5 lakh people united and made their voice heard across India. Don’t we have the strength and self-respect to represent our people together?
KM: What is your message to the youth of Kashmir?
AB: Our manifesto emphasized the youth. After a cut-off date, there should be a common process for verification, passports, and jobs. These are real issues affecting our young people. Dialogue between Delhi and Kashmir, and between youth and common citizens, is essential to bridge the distances created over the years.
KM: Any final thoughts on leadership lessons from recent political experiences?
AB: We should try to convince the Prime Minister before giving up. The LG’s experience teaches us that once he gives up, he claims, “I sent him, he didn’t do it.” Whether we agree or not, we must take advantage of such experiences. And regarding elections, having a National Conference candidate in Budgam does not imply a lack of acceptance. Leadership and coalition dynamics remain complex, and lessons from history must guide us forward.
KM: Thank you for having us.
AB: Thank You
