The brave and courageous leader of the Islamic Resistance of Palestine Yahya Al-Sinwar has achieved martyred now in a fierce and heroic battle with Israeli fascists in Gaza. Although this incident, after the martyrdom of great leaders like Ismail Haniyeh Shaheed and Hassan Nasrullah Shaheed’s martyrdom, is very tragic and heartbroken, but these sacrifices are, in fact, the guarantee of the survival and triumph of the ongoing freedom struggle of the Palestine and liberation of Qibla-e-Awal. Salute to these martyrs upon whom the fascist Israeli forces have dropped over 75000 tons explosives, with their brutal onslaught continuing unabated; the decaying dead bodies of dears and nears of whom lie scattered without burial in front their eyes, the lives and properties of whom have been turned into a mere rubble and yet their faith and determination against all odds remain unshakable. They stand like a wall for the rights of their people. These brave and courageous Palestinians continue to sacrifice their all for this Ummah and the liberation of Qibla-e-Awal and will, without any doubt, achieve in the hereafter what is promised, but not before grabbing the collars of the debauched and silent leaders of Islamic world especially the coward and shameless rulers of the Arab world and put them in a position of humiliation and disgrace there. While one cannot expect these shameless rulers to intervene militarily, but they could have at least cut their ties with the murderous Zionists and their masters like late Shah Faisal did to at least attempt to stop the ongoing genocide of the Gazan people. Instead, these cowards have actively become the lackeys of Zionist imperialists and their masters and directly assist them to annihilate Palestinians. Little do they know that the serpent of greater Israel sits with its mouth wide open to swallow them all! May Allah protect the geographical and ideological boundaries of the Islamic world from these barbaric forces. The oppressed people of Kashmir and Mujahideen all stand in this grief and share their sorrow equally. May Allah help them to liberate their homeland. Aameen.
Syed Salahuddin Ahmad
UJC Chief and Supreme Commander of Hizbul Mujahideen
COMMENT
Puppet without Power
Syed Suhaib Abdullah
Since Indian soldiers first landed at the Srinagar airport, India has been attempting to plant its political puppets, create a façade of “democracy,” and eventually execute its plans—ranging from passing favorable resolutions to enacting new laws—to legitimize its occupation of Jammu and Kashmir. The sham electoral process has been repeatedly used to promote the narrative of “democracy” and “people’s will” whenever convenient. India has always cultivated a network of henchmen, brokers, and lackeys who advocate for and protect Indian interests in Kashmir, India, and beyond. This so-called democratic setup has arguably been one of the most effective tools for solidifying the occupation of Kashmir.
Even when the people were reluctant to participate in any electoral process, India, through its soldiers, ensured that Kashmiris were dragged to polling booths to cast their votes. Whenever it appeared that votes were cast against New Delhi’s favorites, India brazenly rigged the elections—examples being the elections of 1987 and 1996. This time as well, the police and Indian soldiers demanded proof from those they suspected would boycott the elections. They were asked to send pictures of themselves at polling booths through WhatsApp and even upload them as their WhatsApp status.
The recent elections, held after a decade-long hiatus, were preceded by the BJP-led government taking all necessary steps to create favorable conditions for their party to win and impose a Hindu Chief Minister on the region. The bifurcation of the state, the redrawing of constituencies, the creation of new parties, the funding of stooges, and the use of every possible resource to secure victory, however, did not yield the desired results, as Kashmiris ensured that the BJP remained at bay.
Kashmiris have a history of finding ways to express dissent, even under extreme pressure. The long and brutal occupation has somehow made them more astute in ways that are difficult for outsiders to understand. They protest in their own subtle ways, often without saying a word. It might seem as though Kashmiris wholeheartedly support the parties to which they’ve given their mandate, but there is more than meets the eye. No party in the region has done enough to win such overwhelming popularity that Kashmiris would genuinely pledge their allegiance. Instead, the situation forces them to act in ways that safeguard their interests. This time, it was to keep the BJP at bay at any cost.
Their participation in the electoral process was not driven by faith in it, as an overwhelming majority of Kashmiris still believe that elections are no substitute for a plebiscite or the right to self-determination. Rather, it was a response to the new era of disenfranchisement they have faced since the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A. This time, Kashmiris also rejected those seen as BJP proxies, including Rashid Engineer, whom the people of North Kashmir had previously supported in large numbers due to his victimization by the Indian state’s lawlessness in recent parliamentary elections.
Hours after winning a majority, India’s most cunning henchman in Kashmir, Omar Abdullah, made a U-turn. During his election campaign, he had promised to pass a resolution on Articles 370 and 35A, along with pledges for employment and better facilities, as part of his manifesto. Most people, if not all, will not be surprised by this reversal since they are well aware of what Omar’s party has stood for over the years. They also know that he will merely be an elevated mayor of the municipal corporation, with no real power to effect substantial change. From Muslim Conference’s transformation into National Conference in 1939, to the Indira-Abdullah Accord of 1975, the rigging of the 1987 elections, and the civilian killings of 2010, the Abdullah family has repeatedly stabbed Kashmir in the back.
The political framework of Jammu and Kashmir, as established by the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, underscores the considerable authority granted to the unelected, imposed viceroy Lieutenant Governor (LG). Although there will be an elected Legislative Assembly and a Council of Ministers, the LG, who is appointed by the President of India, holds the ultimate decision-making power.
The Lieutenant Governor’s extensive authority, as outlined in the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, grants him executive control over critical areas such as police, public order, and land. Section 53 of the Act empowers the LG to act independently on matters beyond the scope of the elected assembly or as mandated by law, including overseeing All India Services and the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Additionally, the LG has the authority to issue ordinances when the Assembly is not in session, giving him legislative influence. Any financial legislation must also receive the LG’s approval before being introduced in the Legislative Assembly.
As a result, the new Chief Minister will not, in any way, provide Kashmiris with relief from the lawlessness that has prevailed since India illegally occupied the region. So, can we say that the mandate given to a particular party, or the participation of the people, has yielded nothing at all? Since politics in the region is complex and different situations arise from time to time, it is premature to jump to conclusions and make definitive statements. Whether Omar will revisit his party’s old policy of acting as a mere puppet factory, or whether he will abandon its anti-people stance and do something to secure a lasting place among Kashmiris, only time will tell.
The Panel that Lost
Qazi Ishaq Kashmiri
The BJP-imposed panel on Jamaat has now lost the elections. Most of its candidates, barring one, lost their deposits as well. So, what were the reasons that the panel members were outrightly rejected by the people, including the Jamaat cadre spread in every nook and corner of the valley?
Since some lesser-known and alleged members of Jamaat, including Shameem Ahmad, Sayar Reshi, and Ashraf Driver, began to project themselves as spokespersons of the Jamaat, people started doubting them, their intentions, and the entire negotiation process with the Indian state. When the elections came, the truth was revealed. The problematic statements and even open threats from the panel members made it clear to the common people that it was not actually Jamaat that had, with the consent of its core members, decided to participate in the elections, but rather a group of individuals who had hijacked the organization with the full backing of India’s intelligence agencies.
The organization was taken over in a situation where it was extremely difficult for Jamaat members to come forward and openly confront the panel members. During this period, the former spokesperson of Jamaat was released on bail. After his release, he distanced himself from the panel and refused to bow down to the mounting pressure. Immediately after, he was rearrested and kept in Shaheed Gunj police station, where Shameem and his gang arrived to threaten him—demanding that he either surrender and support the panel’s decisions or face the consequences. It was a moment when a young hijacker was threatening an elderly man who had been part of the organization for many decades. The scene was reminiscent of the mid-90s, when Ikhwanis frequently humiliated elderly people, as well as tortured and killed anyone they perceived as their enemy.
Anyone opposing the panel was forcibly silenced, and in some districts, a few individuals whom the panel considered potential threats to their nefarious designs were jailed on the instructions of the panel members. In private discussions, panel members falsely claimed the support of some important figures associated with the resistance movement. All of this was done to give the impression that everything was in the interest of Jamaat and the people of Kashmir and that it was a decision made by the central committee of the organization.
This treachery was unfolding in front of the eyes of some helpless members of the organization. The Jamaat cadre chose to remain silent, and it was only after the panel members openly crossed red lines, Jamaat issued some press releases where they openly distance themselves from the panel, condemning their betrayal and deception. By then, it was clear that the most revered socio-religious organization in the region had been hijacked.
Then came the elections, and the people of Kashmir, especially the Jamaat cadre, responded. The moment the results were declared, it was clear that the hijackers were facing a humiliating defeat and had been rejected by the people of Kashmir. It is widely believed by the people of Kashmir that the panel members were assured of “winning” or being given some seats by the Indian agencies in exchange for their efforts to hijack the organization. However, the Indian intelligence agencies had other plans: to hijack the organization, turn it into a proxy of the BJP, damage its credibility, and render it irrelevant among the people of Kashmir. For this, they chose individuals who had allegedly been associated with Jamaat and were now fully rogue, willing to do anything for their own vested interests.
It is interesting to note that as soon as the results were announced, the Delhi HC Tribunal confirmed the ban on Jamaat—a decision that had deliberately been kept hidden or simply not revealed until the day of the election results. It is also worth noting that panel members often spoke of lifting the ban when questioned about the unconstitutional decisions they had taken. When the panel members were given a chance to meet Rajnath Singh, it is said that India’s defense minister harshly told them to prove their loyalty and that the decision to lift or impose a ban was up to the Indian courts, not him. Proving their loyalty meant contesting elections and helping the BJP form a government in the region. In other words, it meant doing whatever their superiors wanted, even if it went against the basic principles of Jamaat or the interests of the people of Kashmir.
The dust has now settled to some extent. It is now evident that the panel members have not proven beneficial to Jamaat, despite their boasts in meetings. Rather than realizing that this is the time to stop acting as clients of Indian agencies, the panel members are portraying their actions as some kind of strategic masterstroke.
Hindutva Hypocrisy on Palestine
Mir Samreen
It’s almost poetic, in the most grotesque sense, that as homes are leveled and children’s screams echo through the ruins of Gaza, some in India are focused not on the carnage, but on conditions. In a recent article by Shekhar Gupta, the audacity to demand Palestinians sever ties with Kashmir in order to earn Indian sympathy, or any support for that matter, is as absurd as it is repugnant. It is as if the only way to deserve compassion while being carpet-bombed is to negotiate your identity with those indifferent to your plight.
Let’s unpack this for a moment. Palestinians, who have been starved, blockaded, bombed, and besieged for decades, are now being told they must recalibrate their struggle to distance themselves from Kashmir. Kashmir—a land equally under occupation, whose people have faced extreme state-sponsored violence, disappearances, Killings, and mass incarcerations. So now, in addition to struggling for their very existence, the Palestinians must engage in political theater to make their cause palatable to an India that grows more religiously polarized by the day.
Gupta’s argument is neither new nor surprising. It is part of a growing trend in India’s intellectual class to rationalize apathy or, worse, justify complicity with Israel. India’s cozying up to Israel is no secret. As bombs fall on Gaza, Indian arms and technology continue to flow into Israeli hands, used to maintain the siege and occupation. Yet Gupta has the audacity to demand that Palestinians break ties with their allies in the global south—Pakistan, Iran, the OIC. Perhaps it would be easier for him if the Palestinians could just go down on their knees and beg for mercy from those who, at least on paper, support them.
This conditional empathy, or rather, the lack of it, from certain sections of Indian society speaks volumes. As Indian-Israeli relations blossom into a full-fledged arms-trading bonanza, public sentiment has followed suit and grew disturbingly pro-Israel. It has given way to a communal, polarized society, heavily influenced by Hindutva ideologues who see Israel as a model for a Hindu-majority state that subjugates its minorities with military might and legal impunity.
It is not merely geopolitics that drives this indifference. It is the communalization of India’s internal politics, exacerbated in more open ways since the rise of the BJP. This is a country where minorities are demonized, lynch mobs are emboldened, and Muslims are often treated as outsiders in their own land. It is no wonder that support for Israel’s war crimes has become an easy sell to a public already conditioned to view Muslims—whether Kashmiri, Indians or Palestinian—as ‘the other.’
Indians, particularly under the current government, are not indifferent to Palestine because of some principled stance on geopolitics. They are indifferent because they have been conditioned to view any struggle involving Muslims through the lens of their own majoritarian insecurities. And now, that apathy is being dressed up as foreign policy wisdom. Gupta’s insistence that Palestinians must de-hyphenate themselves from Kashmir is laughable in its absurdity, but deadly in its implications. It reflects a broader shift, one where moral support for the oppressed is conditional on political convenience.
What Gupta’s article, and indeed much of India’s current foreign policy thinking, fails to acknowledge is that the Palestinian struggle is not a bargaining chip to be traded for the favor of India or any other nation. The occupation of Palestine and the occupation of Kashmir are intertwined not because of some grand conspiracy, but because both are manifestations of settler-colonialism, of states that see certain populations as obstacles to be removed rather than people to be heard.
To suggest that Palestinians must tailor their alliances to suit the whims of the Indian state or its people is as morally bankrupt as it is strategically ignorant. The fight for justice does not come with preconditions, and those who demand them only expose their own moral failures.
Misrepresenting the Shuhada
Touqeer Shah
Some things in life are very sacred. The sacrifice of a martyr is one of them. A martyr’s death is not just a violent interruption of life—it is a statement, a bold stroke of defiance, an unshakable stand against forces that think they can crush the human spirit with bullets and boots. But what happens when that legacy, drenched in blood and dignity, is twisted into a grotesque caricature by opportunists like G.Q Lone? It becomes more than just a lie. It becomes an insult to the very idea of truth.
Shaheed Abdul Razaq Mir was no ordinary man and no disposable footnote in the pages of history. A stalwart of Jamaat-e-Islami, a twice-elected representative of the people, a philanthropist whose charitable endeavors left an indelible mark on his community—this was a man who built, who healed, who stood tall in a climate when everything was dictated by Ikhwan. He was a giant in a time when giants were few, and for that, he paid the ultimate price.
On a bitter November day in 1995, the Ikhwan—those notorious government-backed militias who tortured, raped, and murdered with impunity—came for Abdul Razaq Mir. Well, not quite. They mistook his brother Ali Muhammad Mir for him, a mistake that was quickly corrected when Abdul Razaq Mir himself walked straight to the murderous monsters and declared who he was. “Release my brother, I am Abdul Razaq Mir,” he said with the kind of courage that only martyrs possess. They paraded him barefoot through the streets, a grotesque display meant to humiliate him. But humiliation never touched him. “Bear witness!” he shouted. “I am Abdul Razaq Mir from Buchroo Kulgam. This is being done to me because of my association with Jamaat, and I am proud of it!” Proud. Imagine that—a man about to face certain death, proud of the very thing that marked him for execution.
They shot him mercilessly. They thought that would be the end of his story. But the dead have a way of haunting the living, especially the corrupt and the craven. G.Q Lone, a man who has done the unimaginable. Lone, with his BJP-RSS backing, has decided that Abdul Razaq Mir’s martyrdom is too tempting a legacy not to exploit. And so, with the kind of audacity that only the utterly shameless possess, he has taken it upon himself to rewrite the history of Mir’s death. Lone now claims Mir as “Shaheed-e-Jumhooriyat”—a martyr for democracy. No, Lone Sahab, you do not get to rewrite the script. You do not get to dress up your lies in the cloak of martyrdom.
What democracy is this? The democracy that sheds blood like water? The democracy that props up militias like Ikhwan to crush dissent? The democracy that guns down people and then dares to claim them as its own? The democracy that uses rape as a weapon of war and in fact uses “decomcracy” to cement the occupation? Abdul Razaq Mir didn’t die for your warped vision of democracy, Lone Sahab. He died because he refused to bow down, because he stood firm in his beliefs, because he was a threat to the very machinery of oppression you now serve in your old age.
This is beyond mere opportunism. This is desecration. You do not get to trade on the blood of martyrs, Lone Sahab, and expect to walk away unscathed. Do you ever stop and think about the words that fall from your mouth? Do you not feel even the slightest twinge of shame when you speak such falsehoods? How do you sleep at night, knowing that you have taken the sacrifice of a man like Abdul Razaq Mir and twisted it to fit your own political narrative? Is there a shred of humanity left in you, or has the stench of your lies blotted it out completely?
What G.Q Lone has done isn’t just a political maneuver—it’s a sin against history and a perversion of memory. He wants you to believe that Abdul Razaq Mir died for a cause that never existed in the first place, that his death was somehow linked to political resignations and blamed those who, in the interest of their people, asked their candidates to resign. In other words, he blamed it on the very organization Mir Sahab was part of! Let’s be clear: Mir didn’t die for votes or political grandstanding. He died because he was a strong force against the very tyranny that Lone and his ilk now represent.
Lone’s attempt to reduce this man’s life and death to a footnote in his own self-serving narrative is the ultimate betrayal. It’s one thing to betray the living, but to betray the dead, to spit on their graves, to use their blood as a bargaining chip in your filthy game of power—that’s another level of depravity altogether. How far will you go, Lone Sahab? How much lower will you stoop? The dead cannot speak, but the people can. And they are watching.
- Q. Lone Sahab, if you have any decency left, if there is even a flicker of conscience still burning within you, then let this be the end of your charade. Stop parading the blood of martyrs for your own gain. You’ve done enough damage. Spare the dead, if you cannot spare the living. Abdul Razaq Mir’s legacy belongs to the people, not to your twisted narrative. His blood is not yours to trade. His sacrifice is not yours to exploit. The more you twist, the more you spin, the more you lie—the more you expose the emptiness of your soul.
Enough. You have spat your lies, and they will return to haunt you. The blood of the martyrs, once spilled, does not dry easily. It remains fresh and reminds us of what was lost and what was gained. It will not be forgotten, no matter how much you try to rewrite the story.
The people know the truth. Abdul Razaq Mir was a martyr of resistance, not of your hollow democracy. So stop. Just stop. Leave the dead in peace and do one thing you’ve never done—look in the mirror, and face what you’ve become!
The leader Who Led From the Frontlines: Yahya Al-Sinwar
Muhammad Zubair Khaliq
“Who is this old man among the dead fighters?” “A gun, some rupees, and a few other small things are in his possession.” Israeli mercenaries must have been shocked to realize that the old man who had just been martyred while fighting on the frontlines was none other than Yahya Al-Sinwar, the head of the Islamic resistance movement in Palestine. They could hardly believe their eyes when the martyred man resembled the pictures of Al-Sinwar. But this is the reality of great leaders: they choose to be on the frontlines, among their own soldiers. Sinwar’s courage to lead from the frontlines has shocked the western world or for that matter the non-muslim world where leaders of such rank usually do not engage with their enemies on the battlefields. Muslim leaders on the other hand have always set examples of actively confronting the enemies. Sinwar’s death, while defending the cause he devoted his life to, is emblematic of a life lived in resistance — a life dedicated to his people, to freedom, and to the fight against occupation.
What made Yahya Sinwar’s leadership so unique was his commitment to face danger head-on. Rarely do we witness a leader of such stature directly engaging in the brutal reality of war and risking his life as his comrades did. His willingness to embrace the same risks as his fighters gives us an idea of the essence of Palestinian resistance: a struggle not only for survival but for dignity, justice, and the right to exist as a free people.
Born in the Khan Younis refugee camp in Gaza in 1962, Sinwar’s life story is one intertwined with the hardships, aspirations, and perseverance of the Palestinian people. Like many of his generation, Sinwar grew up under occupation, where life was defined by checkpoints, curfews, and constant surveillance. His early years were marked by the brutal realities of dispossession and displacement that eventually shaped his fierce determination to fight for Palestinian freedom.
Sinwar’s journey of resistance began in his youth, but it was during his long years in Israeli prisons — 23 years, four of them in solitary confinement — that his legacy as a leader of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) truly took shape. During his imprisonment, Sinwar did not waste a single moment. Instead, he dedicated himself in learning everything he could about the enemy, even mastering Hebrew, and formulating long-term plans for the liberation of his people. His years in solitary confinement honed his discipline, patience, and vision and enabled him to become one of the most effective and strategic minds in the resistance movement.
One of the key turning points in Sinwar’s life came in 2011, when he was released in a prisoner exchange deal known as the “Loyalty of the Free,” which saw the liberation of over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for an Israeli soldier. It was a moment of triumph for Sinwar and the Palestinian cause. His release brought him back to Gaza, where he quickly ascended to become one of the most influential leaders of Hamas, eventually taking on the role of its political and military chief in the Strip.
Sinwar’s leadership of Hamas was characterized by a combination of ruthless pragmatism and deep ideological conviction. He was a man of few words, but his actions spoke volumes. His strategic thinking was most prominently displayed during the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation, which involved one of the greatest military-intelligence deceptions in Israel’s history. As the mastermind behind this audacious attack, Sinwar demonstrated his ability to blend military tactics with a deep understanding of the psychological warfare necessary to confront a vastly superior military power, making us realize that the so-called superpower was, after all, not invincible and highlighting that no occupation, no matter how brutal and powerful, is without a fragility at its very core.
Despite the constant dangers he faced, Sinwar remained resolutely focused on one overarching goal: the liberation of Palestine and the freedom of Palestinian prisoners. Having been a prisoner himself, Sinwar was acutely aware of the suffering endured by those who languished in Israeli jails. His loyalty to the cause of the prisoners was very strong, and he often spoke of the need to secure their release at any cost. His personal experiences behind bars fueled his dedication to this cause.
Shaheed Sinwar’s commitment to the cause of resistance was also reflected in his intellectual pursuits. In 2004, while still imprisoned, he authored a novel titled Thorns and Carnations. This historical novel, set between 1967 and the Second Intifada, delves into the emergence of the Islamic Resistance Movement within the broader Palestinian struggle. It is a philosophical work that examines the complex interplay between individual sacrifice and collective salvation, a theme that runs deeply through Sinwar’s life and leadership. The novel is an exploration of how personal beliefs and convictions shape history, and how the Islamic Resistance Movement grew out of the social, political, and cultural context of Palestine.
At its core, Thorns and Carnations offers an intimate portrait of resistance, viewed through the lens of a fictional character named Ahmad, a young boy from a refugee camp in Gaza. Ahmad’s experiences of poverty, war, and the loss of his father to the resistance mirror Sinwar’s own life. Through Ahmad’s story, the novel highlights the evolution of the resistance — from its early days of throwing stones to the sophisticated military tactics employed by the Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military wing. The novel is not just a reflection of past events but a philosophical inquiry into the nature of resistance, sacrifice, and the quest for freedom.
Sinwar’s philosophy of resistance, as articulated in his life and writings, is one that transcends the battlefield. It is a call to personal sacrifice for the collective good, a belief that true liberation comes not from individual salvation but from the unity of a people striving for a common goal. His death, while a significant blow to Hamas, will definitely galvanize the movement and its supporters and reinforce the idea that the path to freedom is one of sacrifice, struggle, and resistance.
Shaheed Sinwar was not the first, nor will be the last Palestinian leader to be martyred by the Israeli occupation. From Ismail Haniyeh to Khalil Wazir to Abu Ali Mustafa to Basil Al-Araj to Ibrahim Nabulsi to those whose names are not commonly known – to the teachers, doctors, journalists, artists, poets and research scholars – we salute the brave Palestinian people whose life holds no value to much of the world, who are seen as monsters and terrorists for demanding their freedom while their oppressors, the barbaric Israeli’s, are seen as heroes who drop bombs from million dollar jets and yet these brave Palestinians refuse to bow down and continue to fight till their last breath.
Jammu Massacre: A Lesson for Muslims of Jammu & Kashmir on What’s Coming
Idress Bhat
The current situation in Jammu and Kashmir under Indian Hindutva rule, marked by relentless attacks on Muslim identity—from physical assaults to policies and propaganda—invites comparisons to the era when the former state was under Dogra rule. The Dogra Kingdom was, for all practical purposes, a forerunner of the Hindutva movement in the territories that eventually came under Indian control. Anti-Muslim policies were central to Dogra rule, evident in the exploitation and oppression of the Muslim population across the state. These policies ultimately led to a large-scale massacre as a solution to the demographic “challenge” in Jammu city.
The massacre, which began in late September 1947 against Jammu’s Muslim population, is known as the Jammu Massacre. It stands as a historical lesson that every citizen of Jammu and Kashmir should remember. The estimated death toll of the massacre is between 200,000 to 260,000. Combined with the mass migration that followed, the entire demographic composition of the Jammu region shifted within a matter of weeks. For Hindutva ideologues, this is a point of pride; they have openly expressed the desire to replicate this in other areas of Jammu and Kashmir.
What sets the Jammu Massacre apart from other violent events in neighboring Punjab and across India and Pakistan was the direct involvement of the Dogra state establishment. Dogra armies participated directly, aided by Hindutva militias from other states, to kill as many Muslims as possible. This fact of the Dogra establishment’s involvement is crucial, as many attempt to blur the reality of the Jammu Massacre by grouping it with other communal killings in the broader India-Pakistan conflict. We must remember that it was different: a deeply communal ruler was directly involved who deployed his forces for an anti-Muslim agenda rooted in the policies of the entire Dogra monarchy from its inception.
It is important to recognize that the Dogra kingdom was a Hindutva kingdom, and the Jammu Massacre was the culmination of its anti-Muslim policies.
Now, coming to the present-day situation in Jammu and Kashmir, we are once again under a brutal Hindutva military occupation that wears a facade of democracy to deceive the world. The policies of the current Hindutva-led Indian establishment are no different from the anti-Muslim policies of the Dogra regime. They operate on the same anti-Muslim principles in Jammu and Kashmir, viewing the region’s Muslim population as adversaries. The current Indian establishment is working to eliminate what they call the “Muslim problem,” following the same practices as the Dogra regime.
Just as Jammu’s Muslims were particularly vulnerable then, they remain so today, along with Muslims in Pir Panjal and the Chenab Valley. These regions, which have experienced numerous communal flare-ups driven by the Indian establishment, have significant Hindu populations, making communal tensions strongest here. Instances of lynching over beef consumption have already occurred in these areas, underscoring the heightened risk. The current Hindutva establishment appears focused on addressing the “Muslim problem” in these regions first, believing that the demographic composition will make their efforts easier to implement.
Whether it was the Dogra regime or today’s Indian establishment, the ultimate ambition has always been demographic change, often pursued through policies that will culminate, if unchecked, in Jammu-like massacres. The groundwork has already been laid by the Indian military occupation and its supporters. The initial steps—narrative building and anti-Muslim propaganda—are complete. Policies are being enacted as we speak, and many are already in effect. The final step, a large-scale demographic shift achieved through violent pogroms, is not far off.
We must avoid living in denial and consider how the Hindutva state treats Indian Muslims. When an Indian Muslim, who genuinely believes in Indian patriotism, faces lynching, killing, imprisonment, home demolitions, and even the threat of concentration camps, what fate can Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir expect? These are people who have openly rejected Indian occupation and have consistently fought for their freedom.
Jammu City and its surrounding areas posed a significant symbolic and practical challenge to Dogra rule throughout history. The reality was that the Dogra kingdom’s main city and the hometown of its kings was a Muslim-majority city, consistently at the forefront of the anti-Dogra liberation struggle. Today, in the vision of Indian Hindutva fanatics, Jammu and Kashmir represents the crown of a future Hindutva kingdom, yet this “crown” remains a Muslim homeland, much to their dismay.
The parallels are frightening yet necessary to acknowledge, as they reveal truths that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared, because our enemy is more than prepared. This fight is coming to us directly, whether we seek it or not.
Back