‘Taj was overbooked after 26/11. If tourists stay away from Kashmir, terrorists win'—NC MP Ruhullah Mehdi
'Do you identify all of us collectively for your own benefit with the other side—which is animal in nature, and has nothing to do with the faith, but uses the name of the faith for its benefit—or you identify with and take the side of the Muslim, who gave his life for the innocents in defence of the Muslims…,' Ruhullah told ThePrint in an interview.
New Delhi: Two kinds of people identify themselves with Islam—'animals' who killed innocent people in Pahalgam and 'Shaheed' Aadil Shah, the porter who died fighting them—and it's for the nation to decide what kind of Muslim it chooses and stands for, Srinagar MP Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi has said.
He said that Indians didn't stay away from Mumbai and Taj after 26/11, and it would be a victory for terrorists if tourists stayed away from Kashmir after the Pahalgam attack. Last Tuesday, at least 26 people were killed and several injured in what was one of the deadliest terror attacks in the Kashmir valley.
'We didn't stay away from Taj after 26/11. I mean Taj was overbooked after the incident of 26/11, and people stood with (the) victims. That's how I expect the nation should behave in the aftermath of this,' Ruhullah said.
The Jammu & Kashmir National Conference leader told ThePrint that the tourists became an easy target for the terrorists in Pahalgam because the Bharatiya Janata Party equated tourism with political achievements in Kashmir.
'I have been saying since the abrogation of Article 370 that it is very dangerous to equate tourism with political achievements in the valley. We have seen tourism going up and down in the past as well in the last three decades… We equated tourism as a marker of the situation getting better (the political situation). Therefore, it provides a target for these elements, the terrorists I mean, to defeat that sense of achievement,' he said.
'If you want to create a political score out of tourism, they will also want to create a political score out of tourism as they have tried to do. It has been very dangerous. I have said this because the BJP celebrated the influx of tourists as some kind of achievement. I have said that this is not a permanent thing, and please do not drag tourism into it.'
Also Read: Congress distances itself after leaders' Pahalgam remarks spark row. Only Rahul, Kharge speak for party
'Organic outrage on the streets of Kashmir'
Condemning the terror attack, the MP said that the organic outrage that has poured out on the streets of Kashmir is unprecedented and people are lodging their protest against the act of terror, adding that Kashmiris are not bothered about the impact on tourism, but pained by the loss of lives.
However, he said, Kashmir and Kashmiris are being punished collectively. 'The way we responded against the attack in Mumbai 26/11…we didn't abandon Mumbai after 26/11, and you (also shouldn't) abandon Kashmir after this terror attack. Especially when the people have stood against this act of terror. This is an opportunity to embrace the people of Kashmir on a human level,' he remarked, citing the example of Aadil Shah.
Ruhullah said this is the time to bridge the gap between the people of Kashmir and those from other parts of the country, which has existed for many decades, and has widened during the BJP regime.
Asked if the 'organic' protests in Kashmir could be a turning point for the region and its people, he said that would depend on the behaviour of the nation viz-a-viz Kashmir.
'I would quote the same 'mainstream media' which has, unfortunately, again made use of this incident to dehumanise Kashmiris, to turn Kashmiris into some villains or collective terrorists, and they are polarising the society of Kashmir. Whatever is happening on 'mainstream media'…and in the BJP party itself, and their social media handles, social media team…the leaders of BJP…right-wing…how they have been creating the narrative around this act is something which is dangerous in terms of what comes from Kashmir from now onwards,' he added, pointing out that Kashmiris have spoken for themselves.
Coming down heavily on those who shared his 'edited' clip on 'cultural invasion', including BJP IT cell incharge Amit Malviya, Ruhullah said that in the heavily circulated video clip, he was in fact discussing the rise of open consumption of alcohol in the valley, which was 'twisted' to run a narrative.
'You can go through that podcast. Among these tourists, they send a set of people deliberately to create these kinds of activities, which are unacceptable in the society—be it in Kashmir or UP—and I see that as an act of cultural invasion,' he said.
'I would never know that some free fringe element or the Right wing would, I mean, use that phrase to find some scapegoat as they have a habit of, whenever these kinds of incidents do take place… where instead of asking the government of the day the question, they find scapegoats to divert these issues to, and hide the failure of the government, and that's why that's the context I was speaking in.'
The statehood issue
On Article 370, the Srinagar MP said that the people of Jammu and Kashmir are committed to its return now more than ever.
Asked whether the issue of statehood was among the reasons Chief Minister Omar Abdullah was trying to keep cordial relations with the Centre, and whether such rapport would help the cause, the NC leader said: 'I don't think so. That's one of the disagreements that I have with my party and I have a right to have disagreements. Some people in our party feel that the statehood is coming, and I don't see it coming. I don't see it in the grand scheme of things of BJP. In their policy, there's disempowerment of Muslims, and there's disempowerment of Kashmiri Muslims, in particular. There's no place for empowerment of Muslims and Kashmiri Muslims.'
He added, 'Return of statehood means some kind of empowerment and that does not fit into the scheme of things for the BJP, and especially when they lost the elections in Kashmir. They were defeated badly by the people of Kashmir. Why would they want to give up the control they have?'
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: Nishikant to Himanta, BJP leaders back 'free Balochistan, split Pakistan' after Pahalgam attack
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
15 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Sanjaya Baru interview: We've turned emigration of talented Indians into an aspiration
A record number of wealthy Indians are leaving the country. According to a recent report by Kotak Bank, one in five UHNIs is either in the process of migrating abroad or has plans to do so. Over 23,000 millionaires have left the country in the last decade, says Sanjaya Baru. In his latest book, Secession of the Successful: The Flight out of New India, the veteran journalist and policy commentator records the various phases of organised migration out of the country and examines the reasons behind the current exodus. Also read | Review: Sanjaya Baru's book does a favour to history, Congress Sanjaya Baru, an economist and political analyst, has written extensively on India's economic transformation and development. His recent book is Secession of the Successful: The Flight Out of New India. For the elite, the pull of the first-world life, especially in Dubai or Singapore, is too strong, says Baru. 'Why wait for 2047 to live in a developed economy if you can do so today?' he says. In this interview, Baru talks about how the exodus has been normalised, the political and economic factors driving it, and what it means for a country that hopes to be a developed economy by 2047. You argue in your book that India's elite aren't just leaving physically, they are slowly pulling away from the idea of India itself. So, would you call this book a warning, a lament, or a diagnosis? It's certainly not a lament. It is a warning. It's a diagnosis to begin with. The brain drain, or the export of human capital, drew attention 40 to 50 years ago when economists like Jagdish Bhagwati wrote about it. But in the last quarter century, no one is paying attention. We have normalised the emigration of talented Indians, to the point where the government actually takes pride in promoting it. So yes, it's a warning: that you're allowing more and more of your talented people to leave, and doing nothing to retain them. And it's a diagnosis, because I look at the different manifestations of emigration. You've described the secession as a flight from responsibility. The rich are also leaving Brazil, South Africa and Turkey. So, why should we be expecting something different from the elite in India? I don't expect anything different. This is not peculiarly Indian, nor is it new. If other countries don't pay attention, that's their headache. But as an Indian concerned about the economy, I worry that more and more talented Indians are leaving. You've written about the government facilitating emigration. Other countries try to curb it. Is this official encouragement a policy mistake? It is a mistake, but a recent one. Labour migration involves talent too, but given our large pool of unemployed workers, I don't worry about it as much. Highly qualified Indians leaving is something a poor, low-income, developing country like ours should worry about. Countries like China, Taiwan, or Korea had large-scale emigration 30 to 40 years ago, but now have return migration because they've become developed economies. We are not at that stage. We cannot prevent emigration. Proposals like Bhagwati's 'brain drain' tax in the 1980s were dismissed as impractical, but why should we encourage it? For example, the foreign minister recently launched the 'Global Access for Talented Indians' initiative. Why should the government get involved in sending people out? We are a capital-deficit economy — and by capital I mean not just finance, but also human capital. Our record in research, science, and advanced fields is poor for a country of our size. What role have political changes played, especially since 2014? The numbers show an increase in the emigration of wealthy and elite Indians over the last decade. There's an economic reason and a political reason. Economically, more Indians can now afford to buy citizenship overseas, property overseas, educate their children abroad, and live abroad. Politically, there is fear — of the taxman, the Enforcement Directorate, and harassment by the bureaucracy. Last year Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised an 'ease of living mission', but nothing was heard after that. Day-to-day life has become more of a headache: constant KYC forms, compliance demands. That's driving some people out. At diaspora events, overseas Indians cheer the Prime Minister and shout 'Bharat Mata ki Jai' and yet they don't return. Is this performative? It is performative, but more than that, it's the politicisation of the diaspora to serve domestic political needs. Every prime minister since 1947 has met overseas Indians; what's new is using these audiences to influence the domestic political process. This risks diplomatic consequences. A Singaporean diplomat once asked me if politicisation of overseas Indians could hurt bilateral relations. Tensions among Sikhs, Khalistanis, and Hindu groups in Canada, the UK, and the US show that the diaspora can become a source of political and law-and-order problems. And yes, there is hypocrisy. If you're so proud of Bharat Mata and this leadership, why don't you come back and help build the country? Post-independence, some of India's best minds went abroad but returned. That isn't happening now. Why? In Jawaharlal Nehru's time, many high-profile Indians returned — Homi Bhabha, Vikram Sarabhai, others — sometimes at his personal request. Conditions in India were modest, but they still came back. In recent decades, very few have returned. Even those who did, like Raghuram Rajan, stayed only briefly. The trend of permanent high-profile return ended in the 1980s. Can India still turn its diaspora into a national asset, as other countries have? Yes, the opportunity hasn't passed. But it depends on leadership that can inspire people the way Nehru did. Today, 22,000 Indians are professors in the US. If even 2% came to teach here, it would make a difference. Some universities like ISB, Ashoka, and Jindal have attracted talent, but not in large numbers. Have we made emigration too aspirational, then? Exactly. We're not ringing alarm bells; we've internalised it. As (economist) Devesh Kapur once noted, most of our elite — across business, politics, diplomacy, bureaucracy, the armed forces, academia — have children who want to emigrate. It's a loss of both human and financial capital. Last year, for the first time, outward FDI exceeded inward FDI. In a labour-surplus, capital-deficit economy, we should be retaining both finance and human capital. But we're not even trying.
New Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Spoke like true RSS pracharak, CM Siddaramaiah slams PM Modi's I-Day speech
BENGALURU: Slamming Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who called the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) the biggest NGO in the world in his Independence Day speech at Red Fort in New Delhi, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah said Modi spoke like an RSS pracharak, and not like the leader of the nation which has a population of 140 crore. Expressing his displeasure on his official 'X' handle, CM said RSS is not an NGO, 'it is the world's biggest for-political profit, for-hate, and most divisive organisation -- unregistered, non tax-paying, and conspiring to pit Indians against each other. The Red Fort is not a BJP rally stage. It is a place of historical significance where the PM must speak for every Indian -- not advertise his party's parent organisation...' Modi's praise was nothing but a desperate move to appease the RSS, at a time when he is politically weakened and reliant on its backing for his own future, Siddaramaiah commented. He said the PM has lost the moral right to speak for the whole country when he endorses an organisation that had no role in the freedom struggle, opposed the tricolour, and has worked against the idea of an equal and inclusive India. 'This is the same organisation whose ideology inspired the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and which has been banned three times in independent India for spreading hate,'' he added. He said Independence Day is a time to honour those who united India. Instead, PM Modi glorified a force that thrives on polarisation, had no role in Independence, and whose forefathers even collaborated with the British. The CM also stated that India's freedom was won by people of every religion, caste and language, united under the tricolour. 'No organisation is bigger than that unity or above the Constitution. And no Prime Minister - no matter the power he wields - can turn Independence Day into a tribute to those who divide India and dream of ruling it in the spirit of its former colonisers. He should be ashamed of undermining the very idea of India from the ramparts of the Red Fort,'' he stated.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
27 minutes ago
- Business Standard
IAF vs PAF: War of doctrines and the question of aircraft downings
Now that both the IAF and PAF have made their formal claims of having shot down the other's aircraft in the 87-hour, predominantly aerial conflagration in May, we can ask a larger question Shekhar Gupta Listen to This Article I can begin this with a trick question: If in a war, one side lost 13 aircraft to combat and the other five, who won? All of the active India-Pakistan wars and conflicts have been short, 22 days in 1965 being the longest. Operation Sindoor was just over three days. Whenever a conclusive outcome like a capitulation and mass surrender is missing, there's scope for both sides to claim victory. There is clarity in some situations, however. We Indians believe we won every war or skirmish, but accept that we lost 1962 to China. Similarly, the Pakistanis concede defeat in
