'Militancy, terrorism will end when…': Omar Abdullah's powerful speech in Assembly on Pahalgam horror
Speaking in the Assembly, Omar Abdullah strongly condemned the gruesome terror attack that killed 26 people at the Baisaran meadow near the picturesque town of Pahalgam on Tuesday, April 22.
Expressing grief, Omar Abdullah stated: 'Militancy and terrorism will end when people will support us. This is the beginning of that... We should not say or show anything which harms this movement that has arisen... We can control militancy using guns, it will end only when people support us. And now it seems people are reaching that point.'
The National Conference leader further claimed that around 10 per cent of people spread misinformation about the Pahalgam attacks, and warned hem to refrain from doing so.
"We are not in charge of law and order in Jammu and Kashmir," Abdullah said, adding, "But I will not use today's situation to demand statehood from the Centre. I won't demand statehood over dead bodies. We will demand it on another occasion."
"My brand of politics is not so low that I would demand statehood at the expense of 26 lives," he stated, emphasising that politics must have its boundaries, particularly when human lives are at stake.
The demand for statehood has been a longstanding point of contention between the Centre and the Opposition. The restoration of Article 370, the reinstatement of Jammu and Kashmir's statehood, and the implementation of the autonomy resolution were key promises in the National Conference's manifesto for the Jammu and Kashmir elections.
Omar Abdullah noted that silence was observed in mosques across Kashmir to pay tribute to the victims, calling it "huge and very significant".
"Neither of us supports this attack. This attack has hollowed us. We are trying to find a ray of light in this... In the last 26 years, I have never seen people come out to protest against an attack like this," said Omar Abdullah. The CM added that the protests were voluntary, with people carrying banners, posters, and raising slogans against terrorism.
Expressing anguish over the victims' suffering, Omar Abdullah said, 'What should I tell the widow of the Navy officer who had got married just a few days ago? I have no words to console her. Many family members of the victims asked me what was their crime? I had no answer.'
First Published: 28 Apr 2025, 02:53 PM IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court Seeks Government Response On Jammu And Kashmir Statehood Restoration Plea
The Supreme Court has issued a formal notice to the central government regarding a petition demanding the restoration of full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir within a specified timeframe. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, has scheduled the matter for hearing after two months while giving the Centre eight weeks to respond. The petition, filed through advocate Soyaib Qureshi on behalf of academician Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and social activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, argues that the prolonged Union Territory status undermines federalism, which constitutes a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners contend that successful peaceful assembly elections and general stability demonstrate that security concerns no longer justify the continued territorial status. During Thursday's proceedings, the applicants' counsel, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, referenced the Supreme Court's December 2023 ruling on Article 370's abrogation. He emphasized that the court had previously refrained from addressing statehood restoration only because the Solicitor General had assured that it would occur following elections. The petition seeks restoration within two months, though the petitioners expressed willingness to accept any reasonable timeline set by the court. However, the proceedings took a significant turn when the bench referenced the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, suggesting that ground realities must be considered in such decisions. Chief Justice Gavai noted that the court lacks comprehensive expertise in security matters and acknowledged that certain decisions fall within the government's prerogative to assess local conditions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly opposed the petition, characterizing it as non-maintainable and arguing that multiple considerations influence such decisions. He questioned the timing of raising this issue and requested the matter be postponed for eight weeks, indicating the government's reluctance to commit to immediate statehood restoration. The legal challenge emerges against the backdrop of significant constitutional changes implemented on August 5, 2019, when Parliament revoked Article 370's special status provisions and divided the former state into two Union Territories - Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The Supreme Court's Constitution bench validated this action in December 2023, describing it as the culmination of Kashmir's integration process with India while recording the Centre's commitment to eventual statehood restoration. Assembly elections were subsequently conducted in three phases between September and October 2024, resulting in a National Conference-Congress coalition government with Omar Abdullah assuming the chief minister's position. This democratic exercise fulfilled the court's directive for elections by September 2024. Recent political developments have intensified speculation about the Centre's intentions. Chief Minister Abdullah recently expressed optimism about positive developments for Jammu and Kashmir during Parliament's current monsoon session. He has actively lobbied various political party leaders, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, urging them to pressure the government for legislative action on statehood restoration. The Pahalgam incident, specifically referenced by the court, involved three terrorists who killed 25 tourists and a local operator on April 22. Security forces subsequently eliminated the attackers on July 28 in the Dachigam forest area. Intelligence confirmed the terrorists' Pakistani origins and their affiliation with Lashkar-e-Taiba. India's response included Operation Sindoor on May 7, targeting nine terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, reportedly eliminating over 100 militants. The operation escalated into a four-day conflict involving airstrikes on Pakistani military installations before hostilities ceased on May 10 following bilateral understanding. The court's reference to this attack underscores the complex security considerations that continue to influence policy decisions regarding Jammu and Kashmir's administrative status, even as democratic processes have been successfully restored and local governance established.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Kerala nurse Nimisha Priya on death row in Yemen: SC told negotiations going on, no immediate threat
The Supreme Court was informed on Thursday that there was 'no immediate threat' to Indian nurse Nimisha Priya who is on death row in Yemen for murder. It then listed the matter after eight weeks. The counsel for petitioner organisation Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council, which is extending legal support to Priya, requested a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta to adjourn the matter. The apex court was hearing a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to use diplomatic channels to save the 38-year-old nurse from Palakkad in Kerala who was convicted of murdering her Yemeni business partner in 2017. 'Negotiations are going on. As of now there is no immediate threat. Kindly adjourn it by four weeks. Hopefully, everything will be over by that time,' the counsel said. 'Let this matter be listed after eight weeks,' the bench then said. The petitioner's counsel said they would mention the matter before the top court if there was any urgency. The top court was apprised last month that Priya's execution, which was scheduled for July 16, had been stayed. On July 18, the Centre informed the top court that efforts were on and the government was trying everything possible to ensure Priya came out safely. The petitioner organisation sought a Centre-appointed delegation to go to Yemen to meet the murder victim's family for negotiations. The bench said the petitioner could make a representation to the government. The petitioner's counsel had earlier said Priya's mother was in Yemen to negotiate with the victim's family and she has gone there as the Delhi High Court asked the Centre to give her permission to travel. Priya was convicted in 2017, sentenced to death in 2020 and her final appeal rejected in 2023. She is imprisoned in a jail in the Yemen capital Sana'a. The petitioner's counsel had earlier told the apex court that payment of blood money to the family of the deceased permissible under the Sharia law could be explored. He said the victim's family might pardon Priya if blood money was paid. On July 17, India said it was in touch with Yemeni authorities as well as certain friendly nations as part of efforts to reach a 'mutually agreeable solution' in the case. According to Yemeni court documents, Priya allegedly drugged and murdered Talal Abdo Mahdi in July 2017.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
SC seeks Centre's reply on PIL over detention of Bengali-speaking workers
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a PIL which alleged that Bengali-speaking migrant workers are been detained on suspicion of being Bangladeshi nationals. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, however, refused to pass any interim order with regard to the detention, saying any order will have consequences especially with respect to people, who genuinely came from across the borders. "States where these migrant workers are working have the right to inquire from their state of origin about their bonafide but the problem is in the interregnum. If we pass any interim orders, then it will have consequences, especially those who have illegally come from across the border and need to be deported under the law," the bench said. It asked advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner West Bengal Migrant Welfare Board, to wait for sometime for the responses from the Centre and nine statesOdisha, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Delhi, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Haryana and West Bengal. Bhushan alleged that people are being harassed by the states just because they speak Bengali language and have documents in that language on the basis of a circular issued by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). "They are being detained while an inquiry is being held about their bonafide and in some cases, they are even tortured. Kindly pass some interim order that no detention will be held. I have no problem with enquiries but there should not be any detention," Bhushan submitted. The bench said some mechanism needs to be developed to ensure that genuine citizens are not harassed.
