Tushi Deb
What binds Bengal to Kashmir today? Not geography. Not culture. But a tenuous political thread woven through the INDIA alliance-a coalition that increasingly resembles a sartorial patchwork of frayed egos and fractured ambitions. The recent meeting between West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah in Kolkata has set the political circuit abuzz.
On the surface, it appeared cordial- two stalwarts of the INDIA bloc coming together post the Pahalgam massacre to project unity and reaffirm the vision of normalcy in Kashmir. Mamata urged Bengalis to travel to Kashmir, calling for joint cooperation in tourism, culture, and trade. Abdullah echoed optimism, declaring that “tourism is bouncing back.” But scratch the surface, and deeper contradictions emerge.
With Mamata Banerjee encouraging Bengali tourists to visit Kashmir, the question here stands clear. The irony is hard to miss. Both Mamata and Omar appear to be borrowing heavily from Prime Minister Modi’s post-370 Kashmir doctrine-especially his use of soft-power diplomacy through aggressive tourism marketing.
Modi called Kashmir a “peaceful and user-friendly zone.” Now, INDIA bloc leaders are echoing the same narrative, albeit without acknowledgment-repackaging Modi’s script under a new authorial brand. Their shared message? Kashmir is open for business. Their shared strategy? Economic pacification. But their fractured delivery only highlights the alliance’s internal discord.
Banerjee has pushed for “joint coordination in tourism, culture and trade” in an unusually cooperative tone.
She stated, “We will support Kashmir in every way possible-not just politically, but economically too.” Looking beyond this conducive statement, it appears that Banerjee is positioning Bengal as a partner in the national narrative of “rebuilding Kashmir.”
But this expression of empathy starkly contrasts the haunting silence in Murshidabad, West Bengal, where the widows of Haragobindo Das and Chandan Das mourn in isolation. What binds Operation Sindoor in these two cases is the dastardly killings of innocent Hindu lives and the loss of sindoor from the foreheads of Hindu women. What binds these events is a shared grief, but what divides them is Trinamool’s selective response. Mamata Banerjee’s criticism of the word “Sindoor” stems from what she claims is an attempt to saffronise military action. She sees the term as another extension of BJP’s cultural domination campaign and has, in her characteristic style, refuted the narrative outright, branding it as “divisive.”
In stark contrast stands Omar Abdullah, who openly backed “Operation Sindoor” and stated, “I think the Government of India and Indian defense forces have gone out of their way to ensure that no military and civilian targets were hit in Pakistan.” This acknowledgement is not just politically bold; it is a strategic realism from a leader of the INDIA bloc and acceptance of Modi’s nationalistic doctrine that national security cannot be sacrificed at the altar of political posturing. In this way, he has isolated Mamata’s reaction as an aberration. The clashing reactions to “Operation Sindoor’s also expose a deeper malaise within the INDIA alliance. Furthermore, while Mamata opposes BJP and its ideological frameworks, she clearly mirrors and broadly emulates Modi’s economic pacification through tourism strategy but seems to be reframing it as a cooperative narrative of the INDIA alliance. Similarly, Omar Abdullah had stated, “Tourism is bouncing back in Kashmir-despite the challenges, people want to come.” From a political perspective, it looks like he’s working primarily with his INDIA alliance partners like West Bengal to decentralise investment and tourism alliances. However, he’s prejudiced to render credit to the Centre for these developments and instead has been highlighting regional efforts. If we connect the Abdullah-Banerjee meet in Kolkata, it appears Mamata and Omar are borrowing Modi’s playbook, particularly soft power optics like tourism and trade, but they are rewriting the authorship. This is less about ideological agreement and more about counter-narrative building.Now the question arises, will the Abdullah-Banerjee cusp or the once blinking-once fading INDIA bloc be successful in restoring a terror-free Kashmir, walking much on the path of federal unity/cooperation? Despite their shared platform under the INDIA umbrella, both leaders have positioned themselves as ‘above the fray,’ often publicly dissenting and refusing to compromise on their regional pride. The fractured image and the ongoing submissive discord of the INDIA bloc have surfaced with time. In Indian politics, optics often trump substance. Alliances are built on photo ops more than ideological common ground. And nowhere is this more prominent than in the INDIA alliance-a bloc forged in the face of BJP’s national triumph but internally fractured by contradictions, ego battles, and unresolved histories. Banerjee and Abdullah hence stand today as vivid reminders of how similar political glitches and mutual distrust can undermine any unified front.
Despite appearing under the same banner, their leaderships have been marred by a shared tendency towards impulsiveness, tactical reversals, and personalised politics, leading to frequent dissent within the alliance framework itself. Hence, unless they and others like them choose clarity over convenience and alliance over arrogance, the INDIA bloc may collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Hence, if the INDIA alliance wants to stand for something greater than electoral arithmetic, Kashmir must become its moral and strategic proving ground. Kashmir stands at a crossroads today. Will it see Modi’s doctrine of firm peace prevail? Or will it witness the INDIA bloc falter under the burden of its own contradictions? The valley awaits the answer!
(The columnist is a noted writer and journalist from West Bengal)
