Opinion: The Forgotten Loyalists Of Kashmir
Silenced for decades, now heard by the nation, India's boldest narrative shift in Kashmir's post-independence
For over three decades, Kashmir was not a voice—it was a narrative, hijacked and manipulated by Pakistan's propaganda machinery. The pain of this land was never Pakistan's concern; it was a tool, a weapon, a theatre script for international forums. While Islamabad paraded selective tragedies before the world, the actual victims—those who stood by India, whose families were shattered by Pakistan-sponsored terrorism—were pushed into oblivion.
No one asked: Who mourned these loyal sons and daughters of Bharat? Who stood by the mothers who lost not one but four children because they refused to feed terrorists? These families were not statistics—they were testaments of courage. And yet, they were forgotten. Until now.
This past month in Jammu & Kashmir, something extraordinary happened. Something that doesn't often make headlines in the noise of national politics but should dominate the conscience of a nation. For the first time in independent India's history, families of terror victims—those killed for their loyalty to the Indian State—were brought to the front stage of justice, remembrance, and restitution.
In Anantnag and later in Baramulla, scores of families who had been living in the shadows of memory—women who lost husbands, children who never met their fathers, parents who buried sons—were called forth not to be consoled, but to be recognised. Forty of these families, many of whom had never stepped into a government building with hope, were given job orders, legal protection, and public honour. But what they received most profoundly was a return of moral dignity—a currency long denied to them by both state apathy and societal betrayal.
The picture of change has existed for some time now, but there has been a spotlight on it emanating from the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Manoj Sinha. He has provided a different narrative to governance in Kashmir. In an atmosphere characterized by soft separatism and bureaucratic inaction, Sinha's administration has done something ethically sound. It has provided state recognition for those who embraced India, and not only embraced, but stood with India in Kashmir state action, which is deserving of state acclamation. Sinha's actions change the Kashmiri narrative and the narrative of integration to India.
What truly struck me is the scene of people from Baramulla. It is the picture of change, and His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor was the subject. His leadership is what incites tears and affection from a large population. The leadership from Delhi coming to listen is what drives emotion. Kissed his forehead. Hugged him. These actions portray love unprecedented to the LG. He did not come to issue state security directives which has been the hub of concern in the past, but to engage with the people and deliver answers that are long overdue.
This stands as an example of individual kindness, 'strategic humanitarian intervention" or 'civilian-national reconstruction". Pakistan has pursued an expansive information warfare policy against India, using Kashmir as the primary theatre. Not only has it crossed the threshold of violence by sending gunmen, it has sought to justify such actions through narratives of unending oppression. It has deployed narratives of oppression where the 'terrorist' is a 'freedom fighter' and a 'patriot' is a 'traitor'. It has never only displaced fighters, but exported a vocabulary of ruthless dismantling of truth. The literally unthinking victims of terrorism were absented.
This new initiative reconstructs the narratives of Kashmir by placing these treated, forgotten families at the center of the conversation. The initiative has literally and practically changed the paradigm. It allows the victims of human rights to truly speak of their reality witnessed in Kashmir, not the militants but the genuine martyrs, who didn't take up arms even at the cost of their lives.
Let us remember: many of these victims were killed not in crossfire, but in cold blood, for refusing to feed a terrorist, for waving a flag, for refusing to shelter a terrorist. Some entire families were wiped out. And for years, successive governments turned their eyes away, fearing political backlash, fearing it might 'disturb the peace". But how can a peace built on silence ever last?
What makes this initiative powerful is not just its emotional resonance but its implications for justice, narrative, and state legitimacy. For the first time, India is not defending itself on Kashmir—it is setting the agenda. It is saying that if the world must speak of Kashmir, it must first listen to the mothers whose sons were murdered for loving India by the Pak-Sponsored terrorism.
The symbolism certainly has depth, but the ramifications of policy also matter. When these families received employment, it was more than a job: it was recognition of their participation in the 'national project.' Likewise, when LG Manoj Sinha interacted with them, he was not merely meeting constituents, instead, he was in some way, healing a long-standing wound in the conscience of the country.
These families were mocked and ignored by the political elite, and the shift in ideological thinking is staggering. Kashmir is a region once ruled by a political elite. Many of them infrequently visited these families, and some even scorned them. Some leaders even referred to the victims of terror as 'collateral" and equated slain terrorists to fallen soldiers. While some might call that mockery, it goes far beyond that; not only is it offensive, but it is also profoundly dehumanizing. This administration has corrected that language with action.
This also has effects on international relations. India no longer needs to struggle on international platforms. India need not shout on world stages anymore. Let these mothers and widows speak. Let the woman from North Kashmir who lost four family members for refusing food to a terrorist cell, tell her story. Let the children orphaned in 1996, now grown into quiet young men, narrate how society shunned them as 'informers".
These tales counter any document India submitted to the United Nations and so as the women and children provided them, their truths would be bombastic than any document India submitted to the United Nations. 'It cannot be denied that when the truth finally comes out, the noise will be powerful indeed, way more than so-called propaganda." There is also a spiritual dimension to all of this. This wasn't just governance. It was atonement. A political system that had failed a generation, today bows its head and says: We hear you. We believe you. You matter. That is not just reform. It is resurrection.
This initiative is not the end—it is the beginning of a new Indian imagination in Kashmir. One where every tear matters, every loyalty is honoured, and every silence is broken with justice. As this movement spreads from Anantnag to Baramulla and beyond, one thing becomes clear: this isn't just about healing the wounds of yesterday. It is about building a new architecture of trust for tomorrow. The bullet ends a life. But justice restores a future. And for once, that future belongs to the side that bled quietly—and waited for India to remember.
Mudasir Dar is a social and peace activist based in South Kashmir. He is a Rashtrapati Award recipient in world scouting and has contributed to many local and national publications on a diverse range of topics, including national security, politics, governance, peace, and conflict. He tweets from @DarMudasir10. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
view comments
Location :
Jammu and Kashmir, India, India
First Published:
August 03, 2025, 13:18 IST
News opinion Opinion: The Forgotten Loyalists Of Kashmir
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
80 years since Hiroshima, in the wake of Operation Sindoor, the nuclear conversation
Lost in the thrust and parry of the parliamentary debate on Operation Sindoor were PM Narendra Modi's several references to Pakistan's 'nuclear threats' and 'nuclear blackmail'. They reflected a deliberate articulation of India's more assertive security doctrine, representing a calculated move to redefine the deterrence equation in South Asia. That India is prepared to act against terrorism regardless of Pakistan's 'nuclear bluff' is ostensibly intended to enhance India's deterrent credibility. The three-way China-India-Pakistan nuclear relationship has created a complex web of interlocking deterrence. All three countries are modernising and expanding their nuclear arsenals and delivery systems. Given the lack of transparency regarding nuclear arsenals and doctrines, and a marked reluctance to engage in a dialogue on measures to mitigate nuclear risk, the ongoing arms race can further destabilise the region, especially in a crisis such as Pahalgam. August 6, the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, was a reminder of the horrors of a nuclear holocaust. We need to focus on the management of this complex dynamic and on the prevention of accidental or intentional escalation. China, while officially maintaining principles of both 'credible minimum deterrence' and 'no first use' (NFU), is engaged in rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal — predicted to reach 1,000 warheads by 2030. At the same time, the PLA's Rocket Force (PLARF) is fielding increasingly sophisticated missile systems, such as the 12,000-15,000 km range DF-41 and the hypersonic DF-17. PLARF's inventory consists of both conventionally armed and nuclear-tipped missiles, raising a question about China's posture: Is this 'dual-capability' a deliberate strategic choice or merely an organisational detail? Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is aimed exclusively at India, and apart from reserving the right to 'first use', it has refrained from declaring an official nuclear doctrine. Pakistan's transition from 'minimum credible deterrence' to 'full spectrum deterrence' (FSD), which envisages the deployment of low-yield or tactical nuclear weapons, has been rationalised as a measure to counter the Indian army's 'Cold Start' doctrine. The latter, it may be recalled, was a conceptual remedy for India's slow general mobilisation during the 2001-2002 Operation Parakram. However, it is only now that this concept of integrated battle groups is seeing daylight in the form of recently announced 'Rudra' brigades. India's political leadership has stood by its two long-held beliefs: (a) that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack, by holding out a threat of 'massive retaliation' and (b) nuclear weapons were political instruments rather than military warfighting tools. As a status quo power, India's declarations of NFU and its intention of maintaining a 'credible minimum deterrent' made eminent sense. But much has changed since this doctrine was promulgated in 2003. Moreover, emerging technologies have added to the complexity of existing nuclear conundrums. The 'dual-use' potential of technologies such as AI, advanced computing, and hypersonic delivery systems could blur the traditional distinction between conventional and nuclear. For example, a precise surface-to-surface missile could carry either a conventional or a nuclear warhead, making it difficult to ascertain the nature of an incoming attack and decide an appropriate response. The development of smaller, 'dial a yield' nuclear warheads permits calibration of a single warhead to be detonated with a range of explosive effects, varying from sub-kiloton to hundreds of kilotons. The availability of such options could make their use more thinkable in a conventional conflict scenario, potentially lowering the nuclear threshold. Since 1998, the Subcontinent has seen a few sporadic attempts at evolving confidence-building measures and nuclear risk reduction measures (NRRMs), including the 1999 Lahore MoU on measures to prevent accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons, the 2005 Agreement on Pre-Notification of Missile Tests, and the 2007 Agreement to Reduce Nuclear Risks. But these are not enough, and a sustained dialogue is essential. In the context of NRRMs, serious note needs to be taken of media reports citing open-source intelligence that during Operation Sindoor, some of the Indian missiles that targeted Mushaf air base in Pakistan's Sargodha region and the Nur Khan air base near Rawalpindi had impacted in the close vicinity of either nuclear warhead storages or Pakistan's nuclear command and control nodes. While the IAF's DG Air Operations firmly denied the targeting of any of Pakistan's nuclear installations, mischievous speculation has persisted about India's 'warning strike', implying that it was a demonstration of capability rather than an attempt to destroy the underground facilities. The planners and custodians of nuclear weapons must note that targeting an adversary's nuclear assets, even inadvertently, with conventional weapons, can be misinterpreted as a 'counter-force' strategy, which is fraught with the risk of rapid escalation to nuclear war. The hazards and doctrinal confusion that would arise from such an action bear consideration. First, a conventional strike against a nuclear facility would be indistinguishable from a nuclear first strike. Given the extremely short timelines for decision-making in a nuclear crisis, the 'use them or lose them' syndrome may cut in, leading the targeted party to launch its nuclear arsenal before it is destroyed. Desperate options like 'launch on warning' or 'launch under attack' may be considered. Second, while it may not trigger a nuclear detonation, a conventional attack or 'near-miss' on a nuclear storage facility could cause a massive release of radioactive material, simulating a 'dirty bomb', with devastating humanitarian and environmental consequences. Finally, conventional attacks aimed at command-and-control nodes could render the adversary deaf and blind, depriving him of the ability to assess the situation accurately, communicate with his forces or issue rational orders. These are amongst some of the manifold reasons why there is an urgent need for initiation of a sustained nuclear dialogue between India and Pakistan, insulated from the vagaries of politics. Such an interaction, by reducing mutual suspicion and enhancing transparency, might slow down the nuclear arms race and the mindless build-up of arsenals. The writer is a former Indian Navy chief
India.com
6 hours ago
- India.com
Why Is Asim Munir Visiting U.S. Again? Inside Pakistan's Top General's Washington Diplomacy
New Delhi: Pakistan Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir is heading to the United States once again this week. His visit comes barely two months after his last trip to Washington. He is expected to attend the U.S. Central Command's change-of-command ceremony. But the real story may not be the ceremony itself. It is the timing and the conversations already in motion. In June, Munir had lunch with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House. The meeting lasted two hours. No civilian leader from Pakistan was present. It was a first. Never before had a Pakistani military chief been hosted in the Oval Office on his own. According to insiders, their discussion touched on trade, economic ties and the future of cryptocurrency. In his signature style, Trump did not hold back praise. He said, 'The reason I had him here was I wanted to thank him for not going into the war and ending it…' The remark referred to the May conflict between India and Pakistan, four days of cross-border drone and missile exchanges that stopped just short of full-scale war. India later said it acted alone. But Trump claimed credit for helping stop it. Munir seemed to agree. In his own words, he said Trump deserved a Nobel Prize for 'averting nuclear war' between the two nations. The backdrop to that crisis was Operation Sindoor. India launched the operation in retaliation for the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 civilians. According to Indian officials, nine terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir were targeted and more than 100 militants were killed in the offensive. Trump's role in managing tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad has stirred debate. India has insisted that the eventual ceasefire came after direct talks between the two countries' Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMO). No foreign mediation, New Delhi said, was involved. Still, Trump has not stepped back from the narrative. In fact, he has doubled down. Alongside security talks, he also unveiled a trade agreement with Islamabad. The deal opens access for U.S. companies to Pakistan's oil reserves. But the fine print carries a twist. Trump signed an executive order imposing a 19% tariff on Pakistani exports, lower than the previous 29% rate, but still steep. The trade talks have been branded as a package of both relief and pressure. Munir's return to Washington now comes in that context. A second visit in two months signals something crucial: sustained military diplomacy, with political overtones. Whether the visit brings new deals, more pressure or another round of handshakes remains to be seen. But for now, Pakistan's most powerful man is going back to the United States, and the conversations are far from over.
India Today
7 hours ago
- India Today
Trump imposes extra 25% tariffs on India, New Delhi calls it unfair, unjustified
In this episode of World Today, the focus is on escalating trade tensions between the United States and India after US President Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing an additional 25% tariff on India, bringing the total to 50%. New Delhi issued a strong response, with the Indian government calling the US action 'unfair, unjustified and unreasonable,' and stating it will take all necessary steps to safeguard its national interests. The discussion explores the reasons for the breakdown in trade negotiations, including US demands for market access for agriculture and dairy products, which are considered red lines for India. The programme also delves into the geopolitical implications, including the shifting US-Pakistan dynamics and whether President Trump's actions are pushing India closer to Russia and China. At the end of the show, breaking news was reported of an active shooter incident at Fort Stewart in Georgia.
