Withdrawal of security cover for opposition leaders draws sharp reaction; Lone says ‘even security is now a political tool’
By: Javid Amin | Srinagar | 07 July 2025
Security, Silence, and Suspicion in Kashmir
In a sharp and unprecedented rebuke, Jammu and Kashmir People’s Conference (JKPC) president and Handwara MLA Sajad Gani Lone on Sunday alleged that the Union government and local administration are weaponizing security cover as a tool of political coercion, especially targeting members of the newly-formed People’s Alliance for Change.
The accusations come amid rising unease over a string of sudden security withdrawals for opposition figures, including Lone’s associates. “We are not here to beg for security. Nor are we here to complain,” he told reporters. “But I want it on record: even security is now being politicised.”
At a time when political re-engagement is slowly returning to Jammu and Kashmir, this latest row threatens to derail the delicate process of reconciliation. It also raises questions about the neutrality of security policy in a Union Territory that has lived under the shadow of conflict, surveillance, and insurgency for over three decades.
Background: Kashmir’s Politicised Security Landscape
To understand the gravity of Lone’s statement, one must revisit Kashmir’s fraught relationship with state security.
For decades, security cover for politicians, activists, and public figures in Jammu and Kashmir has not just been a matter of protocol—it has often meant the difference between life and death. Since the 1990s, dozens of politicians have been assassinated by militants, and others continue to live under threat. Many former militants who joined mainstream politics were especially vulnerable.
In such a backdrop, withdrawing security cover is never a routine administrative decision—it sends a strong political signal, sometimes even interpreted as state-sanctioned intimidation.
The Trigger: Formation of the People’s Alliance for Change
Sajad Lone’s outburst comes just days after the formation of a new political alliance in Jammu and Kashmir—the People’s Alliance for Change.
Comprising regional players disillusioned with both the BJP and the traditional Congress-NC-PDP axis, the alliance aims to present a “third way” in Kashmir politics. Its focus is on restoring democracy, protecting civil liberties, and offering economic alternatives in a region reeling from unemployment, anxiety, and political void post-Article 370 abrogation.
But the alliance’s sudden emergence seems to have rattled some quarters. According to Lone, within hours of announcing the alliance, not only did critical statements begin surfacing from across the Line of Control (LoC), but the government began withdrawing security cover for key figures associated with the group.
Lone’s Statement: Calm Words, Sharp Message
Here is what Sajad Lone had to say in full clarity:
“We are not here to beg for security. Nor are we here to complain. I just want to place it in the public domain that even security is now being politicised. Ever since this alliance was floated, statements started emerging not just from within India but from across the LoC as well. The timing is too convenient.”
This is a carefully calibrated statement. Lone, a seasoned politician with past experience in both mainstream politics and separatist-adjacent circles, is not demanding sympathy. Instead, he is making a case for institutional fairness, subtly warning that politicising security risks delegitimizing the state apparatus itself.
A Pattern Emerges: Across the LoC and Beyond
Lone also cited specific individuals who issued critical remarks post the alliance’s formation.
-
Ghulam Mohammad Safi, a senior Hurriyat figure based across the LoC, was among the first to criticize the alliance publicly.
-
Naseebuddin, a known affiliate of Jamaat-e-Islami, followed with similar remarks.
-
Then came a more surprising name: Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, a former senior leader of Jamaat-e-Islami in Jammu and Kashmir.
Lone said he and his brother Imran Raza Ansari had recently met Bhat in person and had cordial discussions. What shocked him was Bhat’s public statement, which he says was completely contrary to what was privately discussed.
“I had personally met Bhat Sahib along with my younger brother Imran just a few days ago. I respect him deeply as a courageous man. But the public statement he made was contrary to what he told us in person,” said Lone.
This signals a deeper unease—a suggestion that external elements may be interfering in internal political restructuring, perhaps even being weaponized to delegitimize domestic dissent or new alliances.
The Political Fallout: Is This the New Normal?
Political experts in the region believe that withdrawal of security is not an isolated event—but part of a new operational doctrine by the administration.
One senior analyst, speaking anonymously, stated:
“Ever since Article 370 was abrogated and the state was downgraded into a Union Territory, the central government has directly administered political activity in Kashmir. Security, bureaucracy, and electoral processes are now all aligned under New Delhi’s vision. That gives them unprecedented leverage. Using or withdrawing security can now be seen as a way to engineer political outcomes.”
This means parties like JKPC are no longer just fighting the usual electoral battles—they are navigating an administrative maze where state apparatus may function as an informal opposition.
If true, this creates a chilling precedent.
Analysis: What’s at Stake?
There are several layers to Sajad Lone’s allegations:
01. Safety of Opposition Leaders
Removing security makes these leaders vulnerable to attacks, especially when many of them have been vocal critics of militancy and separatism. If any leader were harmed, it would not only be tragic—it would completely derail the fragile democratic recovery process.
02. Message of Deterrence
Even if no harm comes to anyone, the message is clear: aligning against the dominant political narrative may come at personal cost. This creates a chilling effect, discouraging other political formations from challenging state-backed alliances.
03. Undermining Democratic Ethics
Security in conflict-prone regions must be distributed based on threat perception, not political loyalty. Once that principle is broken, even the neutrality of the police force comes into question, leading to institutional erosion.
Sajad Lone: The Man at the Crossroads
Sajad Lone is no stranger to controversy—or complexity.
The son of separatist-turned-mainstream politician Abdul Gani Lone, who was assassinated in 2002, Sajad started his career flirting with soft separatism, only to later embrace mainstream democratic politics. His People’s Conference was once seen as aligned with the BJP, especially after the 2015 PDP-BJP alliance.
But over time, he has distanced himself from the saffron party, often criticizing their decisions on Kashmir. His political journey makes him a unique bridge between various ideological spectrums.
His criticism of the security apparatus, therefore, cannot be dismissed as routine opposition noise—it reflects a deeper strategic reorientation in Kashmir’s politics.
A Shrinking Political Space?
Since August 5, 2019—when Article 370 was revoked—Kashmir’s political space has shrunk dramatically.
-
Several politicians, including former Chief Ministers, were detained for months.
-
The J&K Legislative Assembly remains dissolved, with no elections held since 2018.
-
Media houses face regular intimidation and raids.
-
Civil society activism is heavily monitored.
In such a context, the formation of any political alliance outside the New Delhi-endorsed ecosystem is viewed with suspicion. This may explain the reactionary withdrawal of security, aimed at sending an early warning.
What Happens Next?
Sajad Lone has raised the alarm, but what remains to be seen is:
-
Will other alliance members face similar security withdrawals?
-
Will national opposition parties speak up against this trend?
-
Will the Election Commission or Union Home Ministry issue clarification?
-
And most importantly: How will voters respond?
Flashback: When Security Was a Lifeline, Not a Lever
To grasp the seriousness of Sajad Lone’s warning, one must travel back to Kashmir’s darkest decades—the 1990s and early 2000s—when security was not merely a matter of protocol but of survival.
During those years, militant groups regularly targeted political workers, especially those aligned with pro-India narratives. Entire families lived in fear. Security provided by the government, usually in the form of personal security officers (PSOs), bulletproof vehicles, and safe houses, often saved lives.
Even soft-separatist leaders who advocated dialogue over violence had no choice but to accept government protection, lest they become easy targets. It was not uncommon for municipal candidates or Panchayat members to be gunned down within weeks of being elected.
So, when that very lifeline is removed, especially without clear justification or transparency, it sends shockwaves—not just among politicians but across civil society.
Politicizing Protection: A Timeline of Selective Withdrawals
2002–2008: Post-Militancy Transition
During the PDP-Congress coalition era, politicians across ideologies were provided enhanced security due to residual militant threats. Although allegations of favoritism existed, security allocation was mostly tied to threat perception reports from intelligence agencies.
2010: The Summer Unrest Fallout
Following the civilian killings in 2010, the Omar Abdullah government faced major unrest. Some separatist leaders saw their security downgraded, a move many viewed as symbolic punishment for mass mobilizations.
2019: After Article 370
The most dramatic shift came in August 2019. After the abrogation of Article 370:
-
Hundreds of political figures were put under house arrest.
-
Dozens of mainstream leaders, including former Chief Ministers Mehbooba Mufti, Omar Abdullah, and Farooq Abdullah, were detained.
-
Security details for many second- and third-rung leaders were quietly revoked, often overnight.
The narrative was simple: post-370 Kashmir is “normal” and no longer requires special security arrangements.
But the ground reality remained complex.
Voices from the Valley: “We Live in Uncertainty”
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior former MLA from South Kashmir, also reportedly part of the emerging People’s Alliance, told this reporter:
“One evening, my PSO just stopped coming. I wasn’t informed. I called the local police station; they said the order came from above. I haven’t left my home alone in months since.”
A former municipal chairman from Baramulla, who survived a grenade attack in 2015, said:
“I don’t want security to feel special. I want it because I was attacked. If tomorrow I get killed, will they say my life wasn’t worth protecting?”
These anecdotes highlight how removal of protection not only creates fear—it delegitimizes political participation itself.
What Other Alliance Members Are Saying
Several members of the new People’s Alliance for Change echoed Lone’s concerns, although more cautiously.
🗨️ Basharat Bukhari (Former PDP leader, now JKPC):
“We want to create a narrative that is independent of Delhi and Srinagar’s political elite. That makes us a threat. Security decisions should not be used as control mechanisms.”
🗨️ Hina Bhat (Independent activist-turned-politician):
“When you take away a woman leader’s security without notice, you’re not just sending a message to her. You’re discouraging other women from entering public life.”
Such statements reflect the broader impact of Lone’s warning. It’s not just about his personal protection—it’s about whether pluralism and dissent can survive in this evolving political terrain.
The Curious Case of Ghulam Mohammad Bhat
Perhaps the most intriguing part of Lone’s disclosure is the contradiction in Ghulam Mohammad Bhat’s stance.
Lone claimed he had met Bhat recently, praised his courage, and believed they were aligned in their vision for change. Yet, shortly after their meeting, Bhat issued a public statement criticizing the alliance.
Why the sudden change?
Theories in Circulation:
-
External Pressure: Bhat may have been influenced by other actors—possibly religious or militant networks—who felt the alliance was moving too close to New Delhi’s framework.
-
Double Messaging: It’s possible that Bhat was always against the alliance but didn’t express it candidly in person, either out of politeness or strategic ambiguity.
-
State-Initiated PsyOps: Some speculate that such contradictions are part of a disinformation strategy, meant to sow distrust within new alliances.
Regardless, the mixed signals have undermined early momentum and introduced doubt among supporters.
What is the People’s Alliance for Change Really About?
Sajad Lone’s People’s Conference, along with like-minded leaders from north and central Kashmir, launched the People’s Alliance for Change (PAC) with the following principles:
-
Reclaiming regional dignity post-Article 370 abrogation
-
Providing political alternatives outside dynastic families (NC, PDP)
-
Reviving economic decentralization, especially in rural Kashmir
-
Challenging monopolization of political narrative by Delhi-backed groups
In short, PAC represents what some call a “post-separatist, post-mainstream” movement—a hybrid of regional realism and civic revivalism.
But such a positioning also attracts pressure from both ends:
-
Delhi sees them as soft resistance.
-
Old separatist networks see them as diluted collaborators.
This dual suspicion makes PAC a target for disruption—and security withdrawals may be the first step in that.
Dissecting the BJP’s Security Doctrine in Kashmir
Since taking power at the Centre in 2014, the BJP has overhauled the security doctrine in Jammu and Kashmir, shifting from engagement to enforcement.
Key changes include:
-
Minimizing individual-level security to showcase “normalcy”
-
Centralized control of intelligence and threat assessments
-
Eliminating political “perks” to cut off patronage ecosystems
-
Increasing digital surveillance in lieu of physical protection
A senior former IB officer said:
“The BJP believes that reducing security for regional players prevents the emergence of alternative power centres. Their goal is control, not consensus.”
This may explain why even pro-India politicians like Lone now feel like they are being treated as liabilities, rather than stakeholders.
How National & Local Media Responded
Interestingly, the Delhi-based media ecosystem largely ignored Lone’s press interaction.
-
No major TV debate picked it up.
-
News wires ran brief single-paragraph reports.
-
Local Kashmiri outlets covered it more prominently, especially Urdu papers and online platforms like Kashmir Observer and The Kashmir Walla.
This media silence speaks volumes. In a region where narratives are tightly managed, what is not said is often more telling than what is.
What the Constitution Says: Security as a Fundamental Right?
While security cover is technically not a constitutional right, in conflict zones like J&K, Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) has been used to argue for protection as a basic entitlement, especially for public representatives.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that:
“The state has a duty to protect its citizens from violence, especially if threats are known.”
If security is withdrawn without credible reassessment of threat, and if the person is harmed, legal liability may fall on the government.
This puts the current administration in a constitutional gray zone, especially if withdrawals are based on political calculations, not security metrics.
What Do the People Say?
On the ground, Kashmiris are watching—and forming their own judgments.
A retired teacher in Kupwara:
“If leaders like Sajad Lone feel unsafe, what about us? Are we supposed to believe things are normal?”
A college student in Anantnag:
“They want to finish all political alternatives. First they jailed everyone. Now they’re quietly removing security. This is not democracy.”
A shopkeeper in Srinagar:
“Security should be given based on threats, not party. Today it’s Sajad Lone. Tomorrow it could be a social activist or RTI worker.”
These voices represent a deepening trust deficit, not just between the people and the administration—but between the people and the idea of political change itself.
When Protection Fails: Tracing a Trail of Political Blood
In Kashmir, security withdrawal is not an academic issue—it has real-life, often fatal, consequences.
Since the early 1990s, dozens of political leaders have been killed by militants. Many of these targeted assassinations happened shortly after their security was downgraded, revoked, or delayed. In almost all cases, warnings were ignored, inputs were selectively dismissed, and responsibility blurred between state and central agencies.
Some notable instances:
2011 – Ghulam Hassan Mir (NC) Survives, Two Colleagues Don’t
Though Mir survived an IED attack in Tangmarg, two of his aides were killed. A previous request for added escort had been ignored.
2013 – Mohammad Yusuf Tarigami (CPI-M) Attacked, Escapes
Just weeks after his PSOs were rotated without replacement, Tarigami’s convoy was attacked near Kulgam. He survived, but the incident triggered outcry over arbitrary security reshuffles.
2019 – BJP Leader Wasim Bari and Family Shot Dead in Bandipora
Perhaps the most tragic recent example. Bari, his father, and brother—all members of BJP—were shot dead inside their home, meters from a police station. All 10 PSOs assigned to them were absent. The government later ordered a probe but no systemic change followed.
These events are seared into Kashmir’s political consciousness. Lone’s remarks must be viewed in this light: he is speaking before a tragedy, not after.
Legal Ambiguity, Moral Clarity: What the Law Says
While there is no statutory law guaranteeing personal security, there are constitutional safeguards that imply state obligation:
-
Article 21 of the Constitution ensures the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
-
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) can be filed under Articles 32 and 226 in Supreme or High Courts for gross negligence in protection.
In the Wasim Bari case, some civil society groups had suggested that the family could have sued the state for dereliction of duty.
A Kashmir-based constitutional lawyer, preferring anonymity, said:
“Security is based on threat perception. But the perception reports themselves are not publicly accessible. That opacity creates room for political bias. A leader’s life shouldn’t depend on whether they’re in Delhi’s good books.”
This growing call for transparency in security protocols is now gaining momentum.
Civil Society and Activists: Next in the Line?
It’s not just politicians facing the squeeze.
Many journalists, RTI activists, and NGO workers are now functioning without any protective cover, despite facing open threats from both militants and state agencies.
🗨️ A Srinagar-based journalist (name withheld for safety):
“In 2020, I received threats after covering a land scam involving ex-bureaucrats. My security request was declined. I now carry pepper spray and hope for the best.”
🗨️ A Pulwama-based RTI activist:
“I exposed ghost schools and phantom pensions. I was attacked last year—survived. No PSO, no phone call. Just silence.”
When the system punishes whistleblowers with indifference, it discourages public accountability. The result? Rot spreads silently.
International Reactions: The World Is Watching
Human rights organizations and international observers have long flagged the security weaponization in Kashmir as part of democratic backsliding.
-
Amnesty International: “Security withdrawals as tools of punishment violate both legal norms and ethical governance.”
-
Human Rights Watch: “There is a disturbing pattern of ‘normalcy through silencing’ in Kashmir post-2019.”
-
UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC): Though diplomatic in tone, their recent Kashmir brief mentioned the “arbitrary reconfiguration of institutional protections for opposition actors.”
While India maintains its internal affairs are sovereign, this growing scrutiny erodes its democratic image globally, particularly as it seeks a leadership role in international diplomacy.
Delhi’s Calculated Gamble: Control at the Cost of Consensus?
What’s becoming clearer is that the central government’s Kashmir strategy is built less on winning hearts and more on controlling outcomes.
From media clampdowns to bureaucrat-led governance and now targeted security withdrawals, the message is:
“Fall in line—or face isolation.”
Political observers say this is risk-laden strategy.
What could go wrong?
-
Alienation deepens, especially among youth and moderate leaders.
-
Mainstream politicians are delegitimized, pushing people toward non-political options.
-
International embarrassment in the event of high-profile assassinations or civic unrest.
Even some Delhi-based analysts have raised concerns.
“You can’t use security as both carrot and stick,” wrote a recent editorial in The Hindu. “That’s not governance—it’s coercion disguised as efficiency.”
Editorial Perspective: The Bigger Picture
Sajad Lone’s remarks mark a turning point in the post-370 political discourse.
They highlight:
-
The fragility of democratic processes in UT-administered Kashmir.
-
The ethical dilemma of politicized security frameworks.
-
The urgency of restoring credible electoral politics under institutional safeguards.
But perhaps most importantly, they reintroduce a voice of conscience into the equation—something increasingly rare in today’s hyper-polarized environment.
Lone is not demanding privileges. He is warning of a system gone rogue—a system where even protection is granted on the basis of political obedience, not public service.
Bottom-Line: Insecurity by Design?
As Kashmir tiptoes toward another electoral cycle—without clarity on dates, alliances, or voter turnout—one truth stands stark:
Democracy cannot exist in the shadow of fear.
If political alliances are broken not by ideas but by intimidation…
If protection is denied to dissenters while given to loyalists…
If institutions lose neutrality in favour of control…
…then what remains is not democracy. It is its impersonation.
Sajad Lone’s words may be met with indifference today. But if history is any indicator, ignoring such warnings has always come at a heavy cost in Kashmir.
The ball is now in New Delhi’s court—not just to defend its security policies, but to restore public trust in fair play.
