Er Rashid Criticizes Disparities in Treatment of Kashmir and Delhi Protests

New Delhi, India Jul 25, 2026 ALN: Amid ongoing disruptions in Parliament, MP Baramulla Er Rashid on Friday strongly protested against mass detentions and the bulldozing of residential houses in Kashmir. As soon as the House assembled, Er Rashid entered the Well of the House and protested against these actions, as stated by the Awami Ittihad Party (AIP). His actions come in the wake of heightened tensions in the region, where security measures have been intensified following a series of violent incidents.

The situation in Kashmir has been a point of contention for many years, marked by a complex interplay of politics, security, and human rights issues. The region has witnessed numerous protests against the Indian government's policies, which many locals perceive as oppressive. The recent mass detentions and demolitions have sparked outrage among Kashmiris and their supporters, who argue that such measures further alienate the local population.

While the entire Opposition, led by Rahul Gandhi, was protesting over the NEET issue and demanding the resignation of the Union Education Minister, Er Rashid lashed out at both the INDIA and NDA alliances. He urged them to understand that when they claim Jammu and Kashmir to be the crown of India, they should not treat it like a colony and crush that crown under their feet. This metaphor of Kashmir as a 'crown' reflects a longstanding sentiment among many in the region, who feel that their unique identity and issues are often overlooked in the broader national discourse.

During the protest, Er Rashid urged Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi to stand by the people of Kashmir. Rahul Gandhi assured him that he would support Kashmiris, as per the AIP's statement. This moment highlights the ongoing solidarity efforts among various political factions in India regarding the Kashmir issue, although such unity often dissipates when addressing specific policies or actions that may affect broader national interests.

MP Er Rashid expressed his condolences for the family of policeman Ashiq Hussain Qureshi, who was killed in a militant attack in Anantnag. He stated, “We feel the pain of the family. But how can you justify the arrest of 2,500 people and the bulldozing of residential houses? Nobody in this country speaks about Kashmiris and the state oppression against them. You have tried to silence our voices through illogical arguments and brutal force. You have created a martial law-like situation in Jammu and Kashmir.”

This statement underscores the deep-seated grievances held by many in Kashmir regarding state violence and the perceived lack of accountability for security forces. The mention of a 'martial law-like situation' is particularly significant, as it evokes memories of past military operations and crackdowns that have left lasting scars on the community. The ongoing unrest in Kashmir is often met with stringent security measures, which critics argue exacerbate tensions rather than resolve them.

He further questioned, “Is our blood so cheap that we are being killed, humiliated, and tortured simply because we are demanding the restoration of our legitimate political rights? The use of force against protesters in Delhi is equally condemnable. But why, in similar situations, are Kashmiris not even allowed to express their pain on social media?” This rhetorical question highlights the disparity in how protests are handled in different parts of India, particularly between the capital and Kashmir, where restrictions on communication and assembly are often more severe.

Er Rashid highlighted the disparity in treatment, stating, “While policemen were being ruthlessly thrashed on the streets of New Delhi, the response remained within the framework of law and order. In Kashmir, however, when an unidentified militant attacks a policeman, cases are registered against thousands of people, and entire communities are subjected to suspicion and punishment.” This comparison draws attention to the perceived double standards in the application of law enforcement across India, raising concerns about fairness and justice.

Addressing the Treasury Benches, Er Rashid reminded Union Minister of State Dr. Jitendra Singh about the killing of an auto driver, Arif Hussain, in Baderwah, which falls in the Minister’s home constituency. Describing it as a cold-blooded killing by the police, he stated, “Before talking to Sonam Wangchuk and offering him juice to break his fast, Dr. Jitendra Singh must answer how Arif Hussain was killed in cold blood in Baderwah. He did not utter a single word against that killing.” This statement serves to highlight the ongoing concerns regarding police accountability and the treatment of civilians in conflict situations, especially in regions with a history of violence and unrest.

The broader implications of Er Rashid's statements and the ongoing protests reflect a growing frustration among Kashmiris regarding their treatment by the Indian state. The juxtaposition of protests in Delhi with those in Kashmir raises critical questions about the nature of governance and the rights of citizens in different regions of the country. As tensions continue to simmer, the need for a comprehensive dialogue that addresses the root causes of conflict in Kashmir becomes increasingly urgent.

Furthermore, the political landscape in India is becoming increasingly polarized, with regional issues like Kashmir often overshadowed by national narratives. The role of political leaders in addressing these disparities is crucial, as is the need for a more empathetic understanding of the challenges faced by communities in conflict zones. The call for solidarity from leaders like Er Rashid serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggles for justice and recognition in Kashmir, a region that continues to be a flashpoint for broader national and international debates on human rights, governance, and identity.

In the context of the ongoing protests and the political discourse surrounding Kashmir, it is essential to recognize the historical backdrop that has shaped the current situation. Since the late 1940s, Kashmir has been at the center of a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan, with both countries claiming the region in full but controlling only parts of it. This long-standing conflict has resulted in numerous wars, military standoffs, and a continuous cycle of violence that has deeply affected the lives of the local population.

The Indian government's approach to Kashmir has evolved over the years, often characterized by a heavy military presence and stringent security measures aimed at curbing separatist sentiments and maintaining law and order. However, these measures have frequently led to allegations of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and excessive use of force against civilians. Such actions have fueled resentment and anger among the Kashmiri populace, who feel marginalized and oppressed.

The recent events that prompted Er Rashid's protest, including mass detentions and demolitions, can be seen as part of a broader strategy by the Indian government to assert control over the region following the revocation of Article 370 in August 2019, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The abrogation of this article was met with widespread unrest and security crackdowns, leading to a significant escalation in tensions. Critics argue that the government's actions in the aftermath have further alienated the local population and exacerbated the already fragile situation.

Moreover, the contrasting treatment of protests in Kashmir and those in other parts of India, such as Delhi, raises important questions about the principles of democracy and the right to dissent. While the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to protest, the reality on the ground often reveals a different picture, particularly in regions with a history of conflict. The differential treatment of protesters based on their geographical location not only undermines the credibility of the democratic process but also raises concerns about the potential for further unrest and violence.

As the political discourse surrounding Kashmir continues to evolve, the need for a nuanced understanding of the region's complexities becomes increasingly apparent. Political leaders, both at the national and regional levels, must engage in meaningful dialogue with the people of Kashmir, acknowledging their grievances and aspirations. Only through genuine engagement can the cycle of violence and repression be broken, paving the way for a more peaceful and just resolution to the Kashmir conflict.

In conclusion, Er Rashid's protest in Parliament serves as a critical reminder of the ongoing struggles faced by the people of Kashmir. His calls for solidarity and justice resonate not only within the region but also across the broader landscape of Indian politics. As the country grapples with its diverse identities and the challenges of governance, the Kashmir issue remains a poignant reminder of the need for empathy, understanding, and a commitment to upholding the rights of all citizens, regardless of their geographical location.