Wife Of Kanpur Businessman Killed In Pahalgam Attack Demands Martyr Status For Him
Last Updated:
Shubham, was among the 26 people, mostly tourists, who were killed in the April 22 attack at Baisaran meadow near Pahalgam.
'He proudly sacrificed his life by identifying himself as a Hindu and saved the lives of many people," said Ashanya, the wife of Pahalgam terror attack victim Shubham Dwivedi, demanding the status of a martyr for him.
'The first bullet hit my husband, and the terrorists took time asking whether we were Hindu or Muslim… In such a situation, many people got time to run and save their lives," Ashanya told reporters on Saturday.
Shubham, a 31-year-old businessman from Kanpur, married Ashanya on February 12. He was among the 26 people, mostly tourists, who were killed in the April 22 attack at Baisaran meadow near Pahalgam.
He was cremated in his native village here on Thursday.
'I do not want anything else from the government except that Shubham should be given the status of a martyr. If the government accepts my wish, I will have a reason to live," Ashanya said.
While she is still grieving her husband's loss, Ashanya is also angry.
'Anyone who shoots by asking one's name and religion should be eliminated," she said.
Recounting the events of April 22, Ashanya said that when the terrorists approached her and Shubham and asked them about their religion, she thought the men were trying to prank the couple.
'As soon as they came, one of them asked if we were Hindus or Muslims? I thought those people (terrorists) were playing a prank. I turned back, laughed and asked them what was going on.
'Then they repeated their question, and as soon as I replied that we were Hindus, a shot was fired and everything was over for me. Shubham's face was covered in blood. I could not understand what had happened," she said.
She said she begged the terrorists to shoot her too, but they refused, saying they were letting her live so that she could go and tell the government what they did.
Shubham's father, Sanjay Dwivedi, rued the absence of security personnel in the area and claimed that the Army personnel took control of the area after about an hour.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Why Sonam Raghuvanshi left her 'mangalsutra' at Meghalaya homestay before Raja Raghuvanshi's murder
A 'mangalsutra' left behind in a suitcase helped police crack the mysterious honeymoon murder case in Meghalaya, director general of police (DGP) I Nongrang said on Wednesday. Raja Raghuvanshi (29) and his wife Sonam (25), who were married in Indore on May 11, arrived in Meghalaya on May 20 for their honeymoon. On May 22, the couple reached Sohra in East Khasi Hills district and attempted to check into a homestay. However, they had no prior booking and were unable to secure a room. On June 2, Raja's body was discovered in a gorge near Weisawdong Falls. A search continued for Sonam, who eventually surrendered in Uttar Pradesh's Ghazipur, around 1,200 km away, in the early hours of June 9. Her alleged lover, Raj Kushwaha, and the three hired killers were arrested the same day. The case took a turn when police recovered a ring and Sonam's mangalsutra – a sacred necklace worn by married Hindu women. According to a police officer involved in the investigation cited by news agency PTI, the couple arrived at a homestay in Sohra on May 22 without a prior booking. As no room was available, they left their suitcase at the homestay, considering it would be difficult to carry it on a trek of over 3,000 steps to Nongriat village, where they intended to visit the double-decker root bridge. Also read | Sonam Raghuvanshi's brother cuts ties with her, '100%' sure she is guilty 'We recovered Sonam's 'mangalsutra' and a ring from the suitcase the couple abandoned at a homestay in Sohra,' DGP Nongrang told PTI. The DGP added, 'A married woman leaving behind the ornaments gave us a clue to pursue her as a suspect in the case.' While their suitcase stayed at the Sohra homestay, they spent the night at a homestay in Nongriat and checked out early on May 23. After trekking back to Sohra, they collected their scooter from the parking area and proceeded to Weisawdong Falls. There, Raja was allegedly murdered by three contract killers in the presence of his wife, the officer said. Also read | How Sonam Raghuvanshi manipulated Raja with marriage consummation promise Police had earlier reported that a local tour guide saw the couple with three Hindi-speaking men while trekking back to Sohra from Nongriat. 'The accused persons have admitted to the crime, and with all the evidence, there is no room to deny,' the officer added. A Shillong court has remanded Sonam, her 20-year-old 'lover' Raj, and the three contract killers to eight-day police custody.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Dear Editor, I disagree: Not all speech is free
The constitutional right to free speech — a fundamental democratic principle — is often misinterpreted. The editorial ('Whose free speech?', IE, June 3) circumvents the context, intent and impact of free speech by defending Sharmistha Panoli's inflammatory social media post, targeting Islam and the Prophet, as a legitimate exercise of free expression. An important disclaimer: My disagreement with the editorial is not a defence or endorsement of the carceral state. Rather, beyond the over-simplistic binaries, the focus here is on recognising hate speech as a form of violence. While the editorial rightly criticises the overzealous police action in arresting the 22-year-old law student — she was later released on bail — it ignores the context that enabled Panoli's remarks and fails to acknowledge the target of her outburst. Panoli's words are far from being an act of reckless indiscretion; they feed into the volatile environment, increasingly marginalising, vilifying, and disproportionately targeting Muslims. The editorial, too, acknowledges that Panoli's post echoed 'some of the most hurtful anti-minority tropes in circulation'. However, more than the troubling content of Panoli's post, one should be wary of the political sentiments that consider Muslims to be demographic threats. Condemning arrests for online posts is crucial, but one must differentiate between freedom of expression and provocative speech that perpetuates targeted hatred against marginalised communities. The editorial failed to realise the essence of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015). The judgment upholds freedom of speech but doesn't legitimise hate speech. On the contrary, the SC has clearly defined the boundaries between protected free expression and punishable hate speech. In Shreya Singhal, the court established a crucial framework by distinguishing three categories of speech: Discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It held that 'mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution', and is therefore protected. However, as the court noted, once such speech crosses the line into incitement — particularly incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder — Article 19(2) applies, and restrictions become constitutionally valid. By drawing this line, Shreya Singhal underscores a crucial principle: The right to free speech does not encompass a right to incite harm or hatred against others. Many judicial precedents affirm this critical distinction. Notably, in three rulings in 2018 — Tehseen Poonawalla vs Union of India, Kodungallur Film Society vs Union of India, and Shakti Vahini vs Union of India, the SC went a step further, laying down guidelines to prevent and address hate speech and vigilante violence. However, these directives have largely remained on paper, with little to no meaningful implementation. The antidote to overzealous state action cannot be universal impunity. The editorial rightly points out that young Muslims have often been arrested for social media posts and labelled 'anti-national' or 'pro-Pakistan', often with little evidence of real harm. But to use that injustice to suggest that no one should be held accountable for incendiary speech is a fallacy. The discourse on free speech must be shaped by consistent legal principles, not by selective outrage and the use of legal machinery by those in power. The solution to the wicked problem of protecting free speech lies in equal and principled application of the law, not in abandoning accountability altogether. In a system that disproportionately targets minority voices while mostly excusing and sometimes even celebrating those who vilify them, the overwhelming defence from all political cadres for free expression is amusing. The double standard is made evident through the ruling party's sudden invocation of the principle of freedom of speech and expression, championing Panoli's right to free speech while silencing dissenting voices from marginalised communities — the latest, the arrest of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, is a case in point. Defending insidious speech on the grounds of constitutional liberty risks defending the right to hate, a right not promised by the Constitution. The writer teaches law at Jamia Hamdard
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Drone warfare came home during Op Sindoor. Where does India stand?
On July 1, 2021, then Army Chief General M M Naravane had warned: 'While we pursue our quest for niche technologies, including AI, it would be prudent to remember that future wars will also involve low technology, which is easy to obtain but difficult to defeat.' These words ring truer than ever in the context of two recent events. On June 1, Ukraine bombed five airbases deep inside Russia using cheap First Person View (FPV) drones, underlining the need to fundamentally reimagine air defences in the age of asymmetric drone warfare. Weeks earlier in May, during the hostilities in the wake of Operation Sindoor, Pakistan had attacked towns and military facilities across India's western front, from Baramulla to Barmer, with swarm after swarm of relatively low cost, low tech drones for four straight days. Apart from inflicting damage, these attacks were meant to overwhelm India's air defences, clutter radars, exhaust ammunition, gather intelligence, and probe for vulnerabilities. Drones, a brief history Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) date back to World War II and the Korean War, where they were used for training anti-aircraft gunners and in specific offensive missions. Their modern military usage took off in the 1990s, after being successfully deployed in the Gulf War of 1991. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict of 2020 marked a turning point in drone warfare: Azerbaijan's use of Turkish Bayraktar TB2 and Israeli Harop drones devastated Armenian defences, decisively shifting the conflict's dynamics in favour of Baku. 🔴 Yemen, where Houthi rebels targeted Saudi oil infrastructure using drone swarms; 🔴 Gaza, where Israel has deployed high-tech drones for surveillance and strikes, and Hamas has used drones for grenades and observation; and 🔴 Ukraine, where both Moscow and Kyiv have deployed commercial quadcopters (DJI drones), military drones (Bayraktar TB2, Orlan-10, Shahed-136), and loitering munitions. Ukraine has notably used 'first-person view' (FPV) racing drones to target tanks, chase individual soldiers and small units, and, most notably, bomb Russian air bases. On June 1, Ukraine carried out Operation Spider's Web, one of the most sophisticated drone operations in history, using 100–150 FPV drones, transported clandestinely in trucks deep into Russia. The target: five key Russian airfields. Ukrainian officials claim to have hit more than 40 Russian aircraft, including strategic bombers like the Tu-22 and Tu-95, and inflicted losses of around $7 billion. Meanwhile, Russia throughout the war has used Iranian-made Shahed kamikaze drones in swarms to overwhelm Ukrainian air defenses, and target critical infrastructure such as energy grids. Not one, not two… Swarm drones are autonomous or semi-autonomous UAVs that operate in coordinated groups, much like swarms of birds or fish. They communicate via wireless networks and adjust in real time to achieve shared objectives. Swarms are more resilient than traditional drones due to in-built redundancy — even if one drone is intercepted, others can continue on the mission. Drone swarms are thus used to saturate air defences (a few payloads may sneak through even robust defences), gathering intelligence, and attacking high-value targets. Countries are already developing even more lethal AI-driven swarm drones, capable of making real-time decisions, adapting tactics mid-mission, and coordinating more complex manoeuvres. These are expected to become integral to combined arms warfare, functioning alongside infantry, armour, and cyber units. According to Fortune Business Insights, the global military drone market stood at $14.14 billion in 2023, and is projected to hit $47.16 billion by 2032. Threat of swarms Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan, in a lecture in Pune, flagged the rising drone threat: 'Now we have drones as small as water bottles — and in swarms,' he said, calling these 'undetectable' and 'untargetable'. Air Marshal Anil Chopra (retd), former head of the Centre for Air Power Studies, said that while drone swarms deployed by Pakistan were not particularly effective, the Ukraine example offers some major learnings. 'When you use very cheap drones that carry warheads barely weighing a kilo — like Pakistan did — nothing much happens. They're jammed easily… Only a fool would fire expensive missiles at them,' Chopra told The Indian Express. But swarm drone attacks can be carried out anywhere, and at any time. 'If someone moves a truck full of drones near an airbase and launches them [like in the case of Op Spider's Web], defending becomes very difficult. In countries like India, with porous borders and diverse populations, the threat is real,' he said. Chopra emphasised upon the need for integration across the security establishment. 'Your intelligence setup, even the local police, matter. Even a traffic constable could make a difference,' he said, adding that the success of the Ukraine op was predicated on Kyiv being able to transport its drones thousands of kilometres inside Russia undetected. 'Strategic thinking, inventory management — everything must evolve. A $1,000 drone damaging a $200 million aircraft is our new reality,' Chopra said. Countering drone threats Defence against drones begins with detection. Modern systems employ a mix of AESA radars, electro-optical and infrared sensors, acoustic detectors, and AI-powered fusion systems. Once detected, one option is for drones to be neutralised through kinetic means, that is, with missiles and anti-aircraft guns. But traditional kinetic air defences, especially surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), are costly, and less effective against swarms. Automated gun systems such as C-RAM and Phalanx, which track targets and fire autonomously, are preferred in this role. Even more cost-effective alternatives include: Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs): Lasers and microwave pulses that disable drones by damaging sensors or frying electronics; Electronic Warfare (EW): Jamming GPS signals or communication links; Spoofing: Misleading drones about their location or issuing false commands; Cyber Attacks: Taking control of drones and crash them by exploiting software vulnerabilities; and Interceptor drones & nets: For close-range neutralisation, protecting critical assets. The asymmetry in cost remains the central challenge in anti-drone warfare. A drone swarm costing roughly $100,000 might take millions of dollars to neutralise with currently available technology. This is why nations, including India, are investing in more cost-effective solutions like EW and DEWs. The ideal defence is a layered system, integrating multiple modes of interception for redundancy and cost-efficiency purposes. Examples include Israel's Iron Dome and the US's Directed Energy M-SHORAD. India's capabilities Since 2020, India has ramped up its counter-drone infrastructure, deploying a layered defence that blends indigenous technology, EW, and air defence systems. Key systems include: Akashteer Air Defence Control System: Developed by Bharat Electronics Ltd, it integrates with the Indian Air Force's integrated command network for real-time tracking; Bhargavastra: Solar Defence and Aerospace Ltd's weapon system fires 64 micro-rockets in salvos to eliminate drone swarms; DRDO's Anti-Drone System: It offers 360-degree radar coverage, with both jamming (soft kill) and laser (hard kill) capabilities. Drones can be detected up to 4 km away, and neutralised within a 1 km radius; and Indrajaal: An AI-powered grid from a Hyderabad startup that combines jammers, spoofers, and intelligence to protect areas up to 4,000 sq km. Already deployed at naval sites in Gujarat and Karnataka. During the May 2025 swarm attacks, the IAF activated its Integrated Counter-UAS Grid, alongside conventional radars, guns, and missiles, neutralising attempted strikes on 15 military bases and several urban targets. Looking ahead There is currently a race to develop both drone and anti-drone capabilities. 'Even the Iranians are producing more than 20 Shahed drones per day. And these are powerful. India too has set up an ecosystem with 550 startups in the field. Some tech is acquired, but we're developing our own tech too,' Chopra said. The future of warfare is here, and it's unmanned, AI-driven and asymmetric. India's response to the May 2025 drone swarms signals it is rapidly adapting to this future. As CDS Chauhan put it: 'We are at a cusp where war may be between humans and machines — and tomorrow, between machines themselves. Machines that are autonomous, intelligent, and make decisions. We may need a layered and resilient defence system [to counter] this.' With inputs from Amrita Nayak Dutta
