During this period, the Intelligence Bureau sent a number of warnings to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the National Security Advisor, warning them that the situation in the Valley was likely to deteriorate rapidly if the order to transfer land to the SASB was not withdrawn immediately. But these intelligence inputs failed to move them. A senior PMO official is learnt to have dismissed the advice.
Once the nation woke up to the seriousness of the protests in Kashmir, it was the Congress Core Group, sources say, that is learnt to have intervened and instructed Azad to revoke the May 26 order.

While Azad has been defending former Governor Sinha, the ex-officio Chairman of the SASB who was instrumental in the May 26 Cabinet decision, the Congress has been blaming the latter, pointing out that he was originally a “BJP appointee” in Assam and his “leanings” were clear with his controversial report to the Centre about Bangladeshi immigrants.
Azad, however, was in favour of Sinha continuing in J&K as it was generally believed that he did not share a great relationship with PDP leader Mufti Mohammed Sayeed. Apparently on this issue, Azad found an ally in Shivraj Patil.
Sinha’s term was to expire on June 4 but the Centre was neither ready with an alternative nor had it decided whether to give him the extension that he had been requesting.

The uncertainty was allowed to persist for a week before N. N. Vohra was named as his successor. Even after that, Sinha took two weeks to vacate Raj Bhawan and hand over charge to Vohra.
Again when Jammu erupted, the Centre was engrossed in ensuring its own survival in the July 22 Trust Vote in the Lok Sabha. Despite the worsening situation, the Centre did not send any para-military reinforcements to Jammu. Patil was said to be in favour of deploying the Army even after he was told that sending in armed forces for law and order duties in Jammu would be a tactical blunder. Patil apparently took the stand that there was no additional para-military personnel to be spared for duties in Jammu and the armed forces must be pressed into service. It was only on the intervention of Defence Minister A.K. Antony, who briefed the Prime Minister about the strategic implications of sending the army to Jammu, that Patil was over-ruled.
As late as on August 2, when the agitation had become widespread and the state was already under President’s rule, a senior Home Ministry official told The Indian Express that the Centre was trying to keep a hands-off approach for the time being and wanted the problem to be tackled by the state administration. Just two days later, following a sharp deterioration in the situation, the Prime Minister had to call an all-party meeting to discuss the issue.

... contd.