In a troubling display of misplaced priorities, several political leaders and parties in poll-bound Jammu & Kashmir, including Mehbooba Mufti’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the National Conference (NC), have recently shown ‘solidarity’ following the death of Hassan Nasrallah, the militant Hezbollah leader killed in an Israeli airstrike in Beirut. This episode raises a fundamental question: why do sections of India’s political and intellectual elite, who proclaim allegiance to liberal values, often end up pandering to militant causes and championing individuals with a violent, anti-Indian agenda?
Nasrallah, a symbol of Middle Eastern extremism and global terrorism, was responsible for years of violence grounded in hate for Israel and the West. One would expect Indian politicians, especially those claiming to represent the aspirations of Jammu & Kashmir’s beleaguered population, to maintain a prudent distance from such figures.
This is not an isolated instance. For years, prominent members of India’s so-called ‘liberal’ intelligentsia have extended their support to individuals like Yasin Malik, a separatist leader with blood on his hands. Malik’s long record of violence, including involvement in the killings of Indian Air Force personnel, did little to tarnish his image among certain political circles. Even as he was being tried for terrorism, sections of the media and academia feted him as a ‘freedom fighter,’ turning a blind eye to the victims of his crimes.
The double standard is stark when compared to democracies like Israel, where all major parties agree that terrorism is never justified regardless of fierce ideological divisions. This consensus has enabled Israel to decisively deal with its security challenges, even when doing so requires difficult decisions.
Political opportunism still plagues Jammu & Kashmir, where leaders often pander to populist sentiment instead of upholding peace and pluralism. The recent display of solidarity with Nasrallah exemplifies this duplicitous strategy—a cynical bid to appease hardline factions that sympathize with militancy.
It is not just the political class in Kashmir that is at fault. Intellectuals in metropolitan India, many of whom are quick to condemn military excesses or human rights violations by the state, are often conspicuously silent when it comes to acts of terror committed by separatists. They couch their arguments in the language of ‘resistance’ and ‘liberation,’ overlooking the fact that militant leaders like Yasin Malik or Burhan Wani seek not justice but the disintegration of India. India’s leaders must take a page from Israel’s playbook. Terrorism is not an issue that can be tackled with half-measures or soft rhetoric. It requires a resolute stance, not only from the state but also from society at large. Political parties that support or sympathize with terrorists, either overtly or through implicit endorsement, must be called out and held accountable.
Комментарии