Omar Abdullah's I-Day Speech: Veiled Threats, Selective Memory & Reality Of Post-370 Kashmir

News18

3 days ago

I-Day reminds us that patriotism isn't a transaction. The Republic's unity is not a negotiable clause to be activated when political ambitions are met & suspended when they aren't
Independence Day is not merely a ceremonial ritual. It is a national meditation—a moment when the past, present, and future converge to remind us of the blood, sacrifice, and steadfast resolve that forged this Republic. In Jammu & Kashmir, these celebrations have a weight unlike anywhere else in India. Here, each hoisting of the tricolour is a reaffirmation of sovereignty, a counterpoint to decades of secessionist rhetoric, and a testament to the resilience of the people who have endured the dual tyranny of terrorism and political exploitation.
It was against this backdrop that Omar Abdullah's 79th Independence Day address at Bakshi Stadium unfolded—a speech that began with solemn condolences to victims of the Kishtwar cloudburst but soon pivoted into a political manifesto. While the grief for the calamity was sincere, it quickly became a prelude to something else: a sustained lament over the abrogation of Article 370, a questioning of post-2019 equality, and—most disquietingly—an implicit warning that if his demands for statehood were not met, 'consequences" would follow.
In a region whose history is littered with coded threats and calibrated unrest, words are never neutral. To speak of 'consequences" in Kashmir's political lexicon is to play with fire—a fire that, in the past, has engulfed lives, destabilised governments, and emboldened those who would rather see the tricolour replaced with another flag.
On Independence Day, such rhetoric jars not merely because it disrupts the celebratory mood, but because it carries the undertone of conditional patriotism: loyalty to the Union contingent upon political concessions. For a man who has occupied the highest elected office in Jammu & Kashmir, his words carried the unsettling air of political blackmail: restore statehood on my terms, or face 'consequences". This is not democratic discourse—it is a thinly veiled threat, a dangerous precedent for a leader who claims to work within the Constitution.
Central to Abdullah's argument is a question he wants his audience to ponder: What happened to equality after August 2019? The issue with this question is not that it defends some form of status quo; all democracies thrive on challenges to that status quo. The issue with this question is that it defines equality in a legally and socially abstract form devoid of reality.
For decades, Article 370 and its offshoots were hailed as vehicles of equality and dignity for Jammu and Kashmir. In reality, they privileged systemic inequality. They prevented the basic rights of citizenship to Dalits, refugees from West Pakistan. They allowed women to lose property rights if they married out of the state. They prevented the reach of national anti-corruption agencies, which created a politically bureaucratic elite devoid of all accountability. They excluded guiding national laws: from the Right to Education to modern property laws which the rest of the countries benefitted from.
It is only after the constitutional reorganisation of August 2019 that true equality is slowly but steadily beginning to take root. There are over 800 central laws that now apply to the region. Stateless refugees for 70 years are now able to hold citizenship documents. Full women's rights to inheritance have been restored. Women have regained full inheritance rights. National anti-corruption and transparency mechanisms have been extended to dismantle the entrenched patronage economy. Welfare schemes—Ayushman Bharat, PM Awas Yojana, and national scholarships—now reach the remotest hamlets without the filter of political favouritism. Equality is not the symbolism of a separate flag; it is the substantive empowerment of citizens to stand as equals before the law.
Omar Abdullah speaks of understanding how to manage the state, the claim which stems from his time as the chief minister from 2009 to 2014. History, as we know, does not reminisce kindly. His term was characterised by the 2010 unrest crisis where the nation bore the burden of losing more than a hundred youth to violent outburst clashes. Those years witnessed the normalisation of the stone-pelting economy where rage-filled separatist networks paid rebellious youth to challenge law enforcement and perpetuated a confrontational cycle of violence which persisted into the second decade of the 21st century.
South Kashmir, which was peaceful and calm for a long time, transformed into a hotbed of violence supported by elected administrations as its orchards, which were once a symbol of prosperity, turned into safe havens for militant groups.
The arrangement of Abdullah and his party pre-2019 was not a safehouse of political stability. In fact, it was a precarious balance in a system where separatist leaders were patronised and viewed as 'stakeholders" while the regime all but refused to eradicate radical networks for fear of political consequences. To qualify this sort of a system under 'worked" would be an absolute denial of the core of governance which is to ensure the safety of the citizens, property, and ensure the national interest without any form of compromise.
The call for an immediate restoration of statehood overlooks the intricate balance of the political ecosystem and the security framework within J&K. Giving due consideration to the security challenges the state faces, the Supreme Court granted the constitutional legality of the 2019 changes. The recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam serves as a stark reminder that remnants of the militant infrastructure, even if weakened, have not been completely eliminated.
The governance of Union Territories provides a unique administrative direct control of the Centre and security apparatus, enabling quick response to such threats with the efficiency that has, in the past, been absent during attempts to counter-terror politically layered gridlocks. The re-establishment of a state structure under such circumstances, with active routes for infiltration, dormant but not non-existent recruitment, and sustained external engagement, is strategically myopic.
The most problematic aspect of Abdullah's speech is the announcement of a statehood signature drive that is marketed as a house-to-house campaign. This effort resembles a form of 'democratic mobilisation" that echoes the past with unsubtle allusions to separatist exercises—pseudo referendums orchestrated by the Hurriyat and its affiliates to fabricate mass dissent for the gaze of the world. If Abdullah's campaign is conducted legally, the framing and approach will still be self-defeating by feeding into separatist narratives that, until now, have faced considerable weakening.
Changes in Jammu & Kashmir since August 2019 are no longer a matter for political spin but quantifiable reality. There has been a remarkable surge in tourism that has rejuvenated the economy of the Valley. The habitual stone-pelting that used to occur daily has nearly evaporated. There is a considerable surge in commitments for industrial investment that will provide employment to a generation used to enduring far more curfews than jobs. Additionally, infrastructure projects, including highways and healthcare facilities, are now built beyond blueprints.
These gains are not yet irreversible. They exist in a delicate balance, sustained by the security and administrative coherence that the Union Territory model provides. To disrupt that balance prematurely in the name of political nostalgia is to risk the slow but sure re-entry of forces that once held the Valley hostage to instability.
top videos
View all
Independence Day is a reminder that patriotism is not a transaction. The unity of the Republic is not a negotiable clause to be activated when political ambitions are met and suspended when they are not. Statehood, when restored, must be the culmination of stability, peace, and irreversible development, not the product of political pressure campaigns or conditional allegiances.
The author 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. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google.
tags :
Article 370 independence day jammu and kashmir omar abdullah
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
August 16, 2025, 11:59 IST
News opinion Opinion | Omar Abdullah's I-Day Speech: Veiled Threats, Selective Memory & Reality Of Post-370 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.