Former head of the Union government’s external intelligence service, the Research and Analysis Wing, Amarjit Singh Dulat’s recent book on Farooq Abdullah has created a furore in the print as well as electronic media.The debate – which is over Dulat’s allegation that Abdullah said he would have helped with the reading down of Article 370 had he been taken into confidence by Prime Minister Modi – raises a number of questions about the ethics of memoir writing and publishing, and even more importantly, over how the Indian media trivialises Kashmir, albeit unintentionally.To begin with the latter, I have yet to read an article or see an interview in which Dulat was asked point blank whether he had drawn Abdullah’s attention to his statement that Abdullah “would have helped” had he and his party been taken into confidence on the reading down of Article 370.True, Dulat sent his manuscript to Abdullah. But he did not draw Abdullah’s attention to the critical paragraph separately, in a message or through a phone call.In interviews, he has sought to downplay the statement as one of ‘heartbreak’, made in the context of a security clampdown and mass arrests. Is he saying that Abdullah did not mean what he is alleged to have said? And if so, why include it all?Both Dulat and his interviewers know that the allegation has enormous consequences not only for Abdullah and his party, the National Conference, but also for Kashmiri rights and politics.No Kashmiri leader has ever supported the reading down of Article 370, though in the past several have allowed its erosion. Those erosions did not go unnoticed. There was broad Kashmiri discontent at the piece-by-piece usurping of the state’s rights to determine its administration and economy, which gave a fillip to dissidents, allowed Pakistan further entry into the valley’s politics and the Pir Panjal, and last and perhaps least, led to the electoral downfall of the leaders who had allowed erosion.By the time the Modi administration came to power, Article 370 was more symbolic than practiced, but as we all know, the more a symbol is detached from its ground, the more potent it becomes.The Modi administration certainly understood this; it knew that it could only withdraw autonomy by using draconian means and it did so, damaging Indian democracy fatally.Kashmiri anger at the reading down of Article 370 is near-universal. Even in Ladakh and to some extent Jammu, where the measure was celebrated, many are beginning to regret their previous welcome of it.In this context, to allege that one of Kashmir’s leading politicians, the president of its ruling party, was willing to compromise on the issue to such an extent not only delegitimises the leader, the party and the elected administration of Jammu and Kashmir, it also suggests that Kashmiris accept the new status quo.As every Kashmir watcher including Dulat knows, that is simply not true. Yet none of Dulat’s interviewers dwelt on the negative impact of his allegation on Kashmiri politics and the issues of Article 370, statehood and civil rights, or asked him whether he foresaw it when he wrote the book.Two of the best – Karan Thapar and Vir Sanghvi – did probe the allegation and its implications, but they also moved on to discuss Dulat’s other observations in the book on the Abdullahs’ personal relationships.Thapar asked whether he did not think the book would sit ill with the Abdullahs; Sanghvi pointed out that the allegation was being misused to justify the reading down of Article 370, but allowed Dulat’s explanation of the “we would have helped” statement and its implication of opportunism to stand. Indeed, he went further: Abdullah did not deny that phrase in his rebuttal to the press, he said (from what Abdullah has said it does not seem that he was asked about the phrase; he denied the allegation in toto).Some might argue that I am blowing a single paragraph out of proportion. But I am not discussing the whole book, only the paragraph which made the headlines. Those who believe Dulat’s recollection is accurate will misuse the paragraph; those who might disbelieve, especially in Kashmir, will nevertheless be strengthened in the conviction that their politicians lack all principle.Indians and in particular Kashmiris have long been cynical about politics and politicians. The events of 2019 and what followed deepened Kashmiri cynicism to the point of total mistrust in any claim to constitutional and rule-based politics.A glimmer of hope emerged with the elections of September-October 2024, which re-energised Kashmiri politics. After eight long years, Kashmiris had an elected administration, even if it was severely restricted by the Union home ministry.A degree of disappointment has crept in in the six months that have followed, at the lack of movement on statehood and various snubs by the lieutenant governor and home minister. Now comes this book, adding another bitter pill for the cynics.So, does a memoirist have to bear the possible impact of his book in mind while writing it? That is obviously a personal choice. For the journalist, however, it is not a personal choice. S/he has to mention context as well as impact, and in this case, mixing a far-reaching political allegation with Dulat’s observations on the Abdullahs’ personal relationships trivialises the former.Back in the days of the Northern Ireland peace process, most senior British journalists, including in the BBC, weighed a story in view of its impact; if the story was not significant in itself and ran the risk of negatively impacting peace negotiations, they killed it.Dulat’s allegation, in light of his explanation of it, was clearly insignificant. Its impact, however, was significantly negative insofar as it played into the hands of those who justify the forcible removal of autonomy and deny Kashmiri resentment at the act. To think that the issue will just blow over is a mistake – the cynicism it has added to will only strengthen.Meanwhile, the debate has rendered a lame duck administration even lamer. It may even end up delaying statehood further; according to Dulat, the Modi administration has no intention of restoring statehood any time soon. These issues deserve a separate show, solely on the consequences for Jammu and Kashmir, including for the prospects of peacemaking.A secondary question is whether a publisher should publish a memoir without checking whether persons quoted in it have approved the quotations. Given that Dulat’s book is a memoir, the question steps into a grey zone. But I would love to know whether his editors even raised the question or asked themselves what the negative impact of a section of the book might be, however small.Ethical publishing is not popular in our country, but Juggernaut is an independent publisher with some claims to integrity. I hope they too will consider the fallout this book has had and how to rectify it. Judging by his interviews, Dulat is trying to rectify the fallout; might the reprint, which I am sure will happen soon, excise this paragraph?Memoirs generally escape the scrutiny of fact-checking because they are one person’s recollection. But when they contain explosive political allegations, reviewers, interviewers and commentators do their own fact-checking to set the record straight. And when a memoir trivialises critical issues of people’s and states’ rights, even by implication or inadvertently, it deserves to be subjected to stringent scrutiny.Perhaps that will happen when the reviews come out. The situation in Jammu and Kashmir is grim enough not to warrant any further roiling.Radha Kumar is a writer and policy analyst.