Punishment for terrorists, those aiding them should be same: J&K LG Manoj Sinha
Jammu and Kashmir lieutenant governor Manoj Sinha on Saturday appealed to the people to ensure that elements aiding and abetting terrorists are uprooted from society.
'We need to strike hard at the terror ecosystem. Terrorists' aides should be identified and they should be given the same punishment as terrorists for inflicting wounds on the soul of J&K,' Sinha said after laying the foundation stone of a guest house at the Hazratbal dargah here.
Paying homage to the Pahalgam massacre victims, the LG said Operation Sindoor avenged the attack by punishing 'terror state Pakistan' and firmly enforced India's zero-tolerance policy towards terrorism.
Also Read | Jammu: Vaishno Devi integrated command centre becomes operational
'The brave soldiers of our armed forces have not only destroyed the terror factories deep inside Pakistan but have also drawn a new red line. Now any terror attack will be considered an act of war and Pakistan will be given the harshest punishment for it,' he said.
After the Pahalgam attack, Sinha said, the kind of protests that were seen in Jammu and Kashmir against Pakistan were historic. The valley echoed with slogans against terrorism.
Also Read | Sinha announces govt jobs for kin of Pakistan shelling victims
He also called for collective efforts to foster the spirit of 'Ek Bharat Shreshtha Bharat' and promote unity across communities.
'I appeal to those in positions of responsibility in Jammu and Kashmir to stop using terms like local and non-local. We are all Indians. Stop dividing Indians into locals and outsiders. You should work to unite people so that a united society can take Jammu and Kashmir to greater heights of growth,' the LG said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
6 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The real question is not whether we agree with what Sharmistha Panoli said
Before this week, I had never heard of Sharmistha Panoli. A law student from Pune, she was unknown to the wider public until her recent arrest by the Kolkata Police over an Instagram story about Operation Sindoor. But in the span of a few days, she has become the latest symbol of how speech, particularly on sensitive religious or political themes, is being policed with alarming ease in India. Her case adds to a growing list of individuals across professions and ideologies who have been targeted not for inciting violence or causing harm, but for expressing opinions that upset entrenched sensitivities. This is not an isolated occurrence. It is part of an expanding trend where comedians, students, content creators, and ordinary citizens find themselves entangled in criminal proceedings for speech that would, in any healthy democracy, be dismissed as opinion, satire, or dissent. Looking back at the 2021 arrest of comedian Munawar Faruqui in Indore, the pattern is unmistakable. Faruqui was taken into custody based on allegations that he might have hurt religious sentiments without any conclusive evidence that he had actually said anything objectionable at all. Despite the absence of clear proof, he spent over a month in jail. This was not the enforcement of law; it was the use of the law to intimidate and punish. Ranveer Allahbadia, widely known as BeerBiceps recently found himself facing FIRs across multiple jurisdictions for a spontaneous remark made in a show. His tone may have been satirical, even immature, but it was hardly criminal. Yet, across social media and police complaints, outrage translated into legal action. What was once comic exaggeration is now treated as derogatory or controversial speech. Even comics like Kunal Kamra have faced legal scrutiny for expressing critical views about the judiciary and a Maharashtra-based political party. Although contempt proceedings did not ultimately succeed, the fact that they were initiated at all shows the shrinking space for public engagement with institutions. The message is chilling: Humour, critique, and unorthodox views now come with the threat of real consequences. The arrest of Sharmistha Panoli must be examined within this context. It is essential to locate these incidents within the framework of India's penal provisions. Sections such as 153A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and 295A IPC (now Section 299 BNS) were crafted with specific thresholds: The promotion of enmity between groups, or deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, respectively. These are not intended to criminalise criticism or satire but to prevent acts that pose a clear and present danger to public order. Both provisions require proof of deliberate and malicious intent, a high bar that ensures the state does not casually suppress expression. The Constitution, under Article 19(1)(a), guarantees freedom of speech and expression. And while Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions, those restrictions are meant to be carefully and narrowly applied. In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court clarified that only speech which incites imminent lawless action can be criminalised. Anything short of that is constitutionally protected. Yet, that benchmark is routinely ignored by enforcement agencies. The danger is not only legal but cultural. A climate of hypersensitivity is being allowed, sometimes even encouraged, to override the fundamental right to free expression. It is no longer necessary to incite violence to get arrested. One only needs to say something provocative, or unpopular, or irreverent, especially on matters of faith. Speech is judged not by its legality, but by its potential to cause outrage. This creeping culture of intolerance weakens our constitutional democracy. It corrodes the idea of public reason that democratic systems depend upon. It also flips the burden: Instead of the state having to justify a restriction on speech, the citizen must now justify why their expression should not be criminalised. It bears repeating that disagreement, offence, or even remarks made in bad taste are not grounds for arrest. In a plural and diverse society like India, different viewpoints, even uncomfortable or controversial ones, must be accommodated unless they present a real and immediate threat to public order. This is the bedrock of constitutionalism. The consequences of arrest are far-reaching. Even when bail is eventually granted or charges are dropped, the process itself becomes punishment. It damages reputations, chills further expression, and reinforces the idea that it is safer to remain silent than speak one's mind. This is especially dangerous when applied to students and young professionals. The arrest or harassment of a law student like Sharmistha Panoli, or the above-mentioned comedians, indicates a clear pattern which cuts across ideology, gender, and geography. This does not reflect a society that values public debate. It reflects one that fears it. In the end, the real question is not whether we agree with what Sharmistha Panoli said. The question is whether we are willing to live in a country where the price of speaking is a prison cell. If that becomes the norm, then it is not just free speech that suffers, it is our collective claim to be a constitutional democracy. The writer is a legal researcher specialising in constitutional law, based in Delhi
Indian Express
31 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Javed Akhtar on Pakistani actors wishing death upon him after choosing ‘hell over Pakistan' remark: ‘If their prayers had effect, the country wouldn't be in…'
Last month, noted lyricist and screenwriter Javed Akhtar, who is often targeted for his views on patriotism and religion, says that if there comes a time he has to choose between Pakistan and hell, he would prefer to go to hell. At the event, the lyricist — who identifies himself as an atheist — said extremists from both India and Pakistan shower abuses on him on a daily basis. 'If you're on one side, the abuses come only from one side. But if you're on neither side, you get abuses from both sides. So I get abuses like, 'Kafir, jehnumi, mardood, tu toh jehnum mein hi jaega (You'll go to hell).' And from the other side, I get, 'Jihadi, Pakistan chala ja' (Go to Pakistan, traitor). People can call me a jihadi too? They have quite an imagination,' said Akhtar. In the interview with The Lallantop, Akhtar reasoned that if all the fundamentalists of India want him to go to either Pakistan or hell, he'd choose hell. 'Pakistan felt really bad by that. But I said you don't issue me a visa anyway,' said Akhtar. His last appearance in Pakistan was two years ago when he attended an event to commemorate legendary poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz. Pakistani actors Imran Abbas, Mishi Khan, and Asim Mehmood criticised Akhtar's 'hell over Pakistan' remark, with Mehmood going to the extent of wishing death upon him. 'If their prayers had that effect, then they wouldn't be in the state they're in today,' responded Akhtar, laughing. He reasoned that India being in a crisis suits Pakistan's agenda. 'Your stability is in the claim that you can point to India's state and say why you formed Pakistan in the first place. But if a Javed Akhtar earns respect and money, then it doesn't suit you. How would Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan, and Salman Khan being such big stars suit them either? Their existence is proving your basic argument wrong,' said Akhtar. He argued that Pakistani actors would be wishing today if they'd have stayed back in India, they would've prospered like Indian actors did. He pointed out the example of Pakistani actor Bushra Ansari, who recently advised Akhtar to stay as quiet on Pakistan as veteran Indian actor Naseeruddin Shah. She also claimed that Javed would not even get a house on rent in India. Also Read — Javed Akhtar on Bollywood's silence over Operation Sindoor: 'Kuch log abhi abhi paisa aur naam kamane mein lage hain…' 'She's a very fine actor! If she was in India, she'd be a global name by now. I've seen a couple of her plays, so I know how good she is. This sadness of not making it like Indian actors did has stayed with them,' said Akhtar. Last month, Akhtar said in an interview with PTI that this is not the time to even think about whether Pakistani artists should be allowed to work in India.
News18
33 minutes ago
- News18
J&K's Lieutenant Governor Sacks 3 Government Employees Over Links With Lashkar, Hizbul
Last Updated: Jammu and Kashmir's Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha sacked three government employees linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizb-ul-Mujahidin. Jammu and Kashmir's Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha on Tuesday sacked three government employees who were working for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM). The three sacked employees, who are in jail, have been identified as Malik Ishfaq Naseer, a police constable; Ajaz Ahmed, a teacher in the school education department; and Waseem Ahmad Khan, a junior assistant at Government Medical College, Srinagar. A senior security official said the government employees fired by the Lieutenant Governor were actively working for the terror outfits and helping terrorists to execute terror attacks on security forces and civilians. Sinha has ensured aggressive counter-terrorism operations, with security forces neutralising hundreds of terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir between 2020 and 2024 and termination of more than 75 OGW/Terror associates from government jobs under Article 311(2)(c) of the Indian Constitution. He has pledged to root out terrorism and its support structures, ensuring strict action against terrorists and their aides.
