Opinion | Omar Abdullah’s I-Day Speech: Veiled Threats, Selective Memory & Reality Of Post-370 Kashmir
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........
© News18
