Valley Leaders Flag Rising Hostility Against Kashmiris After Delhi Blast – Profiling & Alienation in the Spotlight
By: Javid Amin | 20 November 2025
On 10 November 2025, a car explosion near the historic Red Fort in Delhi claimed lives and set off a nationwide security alert. In the following days, prominent valley leaders from the union territory of Jammu & Kashmir raised a new and urgent alarm: the growing risk that ordinary Kashmiris are now being unfairly suspected, profiled and harassed simply because of where they come from.
From the corridors of Srinagar to Delhi’s streets, the message was clear: condemnation of violence must not translate into collective punishment of a community. This article explores in depth the statements of valley leaders, the context behind their warnings, the fallout of the blast, and what this means for national integration, trust, and the future of Kashmir’s youth.
The Blast & Immediate Fallout
A. What happened
According to government sources, the explosion near the Red Fort has been officially classified as a terror incident. The car — reportedly a white Hyundai i20 — exploded in heavy traffic near one of India’s most symbolic monuments. Investigators point to a possible link with militants based in Kashmir’s Pulwama district.
While the exact number of casualties varies across reports (ranging from eight to fifteen), the broader picture is of serious damage, mass disturbance, and intense security action.
B. The ripple effects
The aftermath was swift and far-reaching:
-
Security forces across northern India launched raids, investigations and checks, including in Kashmir and areas where Kashmiris reside outside.
-
Reports emerged of Kashmiris facing harassment—students questioned, vendors stopped, vehicles with J&K registrations singled out in places such as Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, Gurugram.
-
Valley leaders immediately flagged what they called a “profiling” problem: the idea that because a few people from Kashmir may have been involved, all Kashmiris are viewed as suspects.
Statements from Valley Leaders: Voice of Alarm & Appeal
A. Omar Abdullah
The Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir (as per recent reporting) put the issue in blunt terms:
“Few people are responsible for what happened in Delhi … but a perception is being created that we all are to blame and we all are a part of it.”
He added:
“Driving a vehicle with a J-K registration in Delhi is being seen as a crime.”
And further noted that many parents in the Valley now fear sending their children outside, given the suspicion and possible harassment they might face.
He also made clear:
“Not every resident of Jammu and Kashmir is a terrorist.”
In sum, Omar Abdullah demanded that while authorities must investigate the blast and punish culprits, innocent Kashmiris must not be stigmatized.
B. Mehbooba Mufti
Another leading voice from the Valley, Mufti strongly criticised the central government’s approach. She described the blast as “a reflection of the troubles in Kashmir” and suggested it is a fallout of “government policies”. (As per your summary) While I did not locate a direct quoted source in the searches I ran, multiple reports note her warning of unfair treatment of Kashmiris and her criticism of how the blast is being used.
C. Sajad Lone
Lone appealed directly to the Prime Minister to ensure protection for Kashmiris across India, stressing that citizens of Jammu & Kashmir should not face harassment in their “own country”. (As per summary) His intervention flags the national dimension of the issue: movement of Kashmiris outside the union territory, and the risk they face when the national dialogue equates them uniformly with suspicion.
D. Er. Rashid
The jailed MP announced a hunger strike to protest violence and discrimination against Kashmiris. While I did not locate a full news article verifying the specifics of the hunger strike in my searches, he is known for vocal stances and this adds to the chorus of voices raising the issue of profiling.
Profiling and Hostility: What the Leaders Warned About
A. Collective suspicion and its dangers
The key concern: we live in a moment where a terrorist incident committed by “a few” can lead to all people from the region being viewed through a lens of suspicion. As Omar Abdullah said:
“We are looked at with suspicious eyes from every side … attempts are made to bring everyone into the ambit of what few people have done.”
This raises multiple dangers:
-
Innocent Kashmiris may face harassment, questioning, extra security checks simply because they carry a J&K registration plate or come from a Kashmiri background.
-
Families may restrict travel, education or work outside the Valley for fear of mis-treatment.
-
The sense of being “second class citizen” or “permanent suspect” grows, fuelling alienation and fragmentation.
B. Travel, education and employment disruptions
One concrete effect: parents in J&K reportedly reconsidering sending their children outside the Valley for education or work. The reason: anxiety that in other states, they’ll be treated as suspects rather than ordinary students or job-seekers. Omar Abdullah’s remark about his own car registration is telling: if the Chief Minister feels apprehensive in Delhi, what about ordinary citizens?
This has longer-term implications: when youth cannot travel freely, when opportunities outside are perceived as risky, that limits integration, weakens the sense of “nationhood” and fosters inward-looking attitudes.
C. National integration and social trust at stake
The profiling of Kashmiris is not just a local problem—it touches the entire idea of national cohesion. When a region feels targeted, when its people feel labelled en masse, the sense of belonging erodes. Leaders warn that the incident is testing the fragile trust between Kashmiris and “rest of India”.
D. Moral dimension: condemnation vs collective blame
Leaders make a clear moral argument: yes, terrorism must be condemned, and perpetrators punished—but innocent people must not carry the burden of others’ misdeeds. As Omar Abdullah pointed out:
“While those involved in the terror module must be arrested … innocent civilians who have no link to such acts … should not be dragged into this.”
The message: the moral integrity of a democracy rests on protecting the innocent, particularly those who already feel vulnerable.
The Broader Context: Kashmir After 2019 & the Trust Deficit
A. The political backdrop
Since 2019, when Article 370 (the special status of J&K) was abrogated and Jammu & Kashmir was reorganised as a union territory, the region has seen both promises of “new normalcy” and persistent unrest. The official narrative emphasised restoration of stability, development and fuller integration with India’s mainstream.
Yet valley leaders and many residents argue that the promised stability has not fully materialised—and that the psychological, social, and trust aspects remain deeply flawed. Omar Abdullah’s recent remarks about continued bloodshed and unfulfilled promises illustrate this.
B. Feeling of alienation
The sense of alienation is not limited to the Valley—it is mirrored in Kashmiris living outside the region. When the national-level shocking event (like the Red Fort blast) involves a suspect from Kashmir, the reaction often sweeps across the community.
This creates a double burden for Kashmiris: one, they deal with the direct impact of violence or security operations; two, they deal with collective suspicion, extra scrutiny, and social stigma.
C. Youth, opportunity and frustration
While profiling and suspicion are immediate concerns, they feed into long-term issues: trust in institutions, willingness to move out of the Valley for studies or jobs, confidence in national belonging. Young Kashmiris may increasingly feel marginalised.
When cynicism, fear or apathy take root among youth, the risk is not just individual despair—it is a weakening of the societal fabric in the Valley, and a weakening of the “bridge” between Kashmir and the rest of India.
What Needs to Happen: Leaders’ Calls & Policy Implications
A. Protect innocent citizens
One of the immediate demands from valley leaders is that the Centre and state/union territory authorities must proactively protect Kashmiris from harassment and profiling. This means:
-
Clear instructions to law-enforcement agencies to avoid sweeping assumptions.
-
Monitoring of incidents of harassment, discrimination and profiling against Kashmiris across states.
-
Assurance to citizens from J&K that they are safe to travel, study, work outside without being seen as “suspect.”
Omar Abdullah’s appeals to not view every Kashmiri Muslim with suspicion reflect precisely this.
B. Distinguish between perpetrators and community
The second major ask is one of discernment: the perpetrators of the attack must be held fully accountable—but that should not shift into a narrative that the entire region or community is complicit or to blame.
When entire groups are treated as suspects, the social cost is heavy:
-
Fear spreads
-
Integration suffers
-
Society fragments
Leaders call for sharp differentiation – between individuals who commit acts of terror and the community of which they are a part.
C. Dialogue, integration and rebuilding trust
Profiling and suspicion cannot be countered only by security measures. They demand:
-
Robust communication from authorities to show that Kashmiris outside the Valley are valued citizens.
-
Educational initiatives to sensitise host-states about Kashmiris as students, professionals, not “security risks.”
-
Political leadership both in J&K and New Delhi to consistently frame Kashmiris as part of the national fabric.
-
Institutional reforms that ensure equitable treatment, that victims of profiling have recourse.
D. Addressing root causes
While the immediate need is to stop profiling, valley leaders make a deeper point: unless the root causes of Kashmir’s alienation are addressed, you will simply have different manifestations of the same problem. That means:
-
Economic opportunity for youth in and outside the Valley
-
Social mobility and dignity
-
A sense of belonging to India that is meaningful, not just rhetorical
-
Security responses that do not erode civil liberties or fuel resentment
In short: peace must be paired with dignity, not only the absence of violence.
Risks & Consequences if Inaction Continues
A. Flight of confidence
If Kashmiris feel unsafe travelling, studying or working outside the Valley, then the “bridge” to the rest of India weakens. That hampers integration, increases insularity, and reinforces the “inside-outside” divide.
B. Deepening alienation
Profiling and harassment risk alienating a community that already experiences governance, military and judicial pressures more intensely than most. Alienation breeds mistrust, which can fuel radicalisation, migration, brain-drain or social withdrawal.
C. Undermining national unity
For a country as diverse as India, sustaining unity requires trust—among states, among communities, among citizens. When one region’s people feel singled out and insecure, the wound is not just local—it becomes national.
D. Reputation and social capital
Every citizen carries social capital; profiling erodes it. Kashmiris whose talents, education and ambition should contribute to the nation may end up self-censoring, withdrawing, or simply being stigmatised. This is a loss for them and for India.
What This Reveals About India, Kashmir & the Moment
-
Fragility of normalcy: The “new normal” promised after 2019 is still fragile. Even a single terror incident reverberates deeply in Kashmir’s psyche and outside.
-
Identity and mobility: For many Kashmiris, mobility—geographic, educational, professional—is already fraught. Add suspicion and profiling and the cost multiplies.
-
Security vs civil rights: The balancing act between anti‐terror measures and protection of civil liberties is sharper than ever. Profiling of a region or community is a civil rights hazard.
-
Moderate voices matter: Leaders like Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti and Sajad Lone play a critical role: they condemn violence, they call for justice—but also for dignity, fairness, and respect. Their message bridges both security concerns and rights.
-
National integration is more than a slogan: Real integration means Kashmiris feeling fully safe and accepted inside the republic—physically, socially and mentally. It means no car with a J&K plate becoming a source of anxiety in Delhi.
Conclusion: From Hostility to Healing
The stakes could not be higher.
A car explosion near India’s iconic Red Fort sets off alarms about terrorism—and rightly so. But the fallout has thrown into sharper relief an equally serious issue: the hostility, suspicion and profiling faced by innocent Kashmiris simply for where they are from.
Valley leaders have flagged this danger loudly—and with reason. They warn that unless ordinary citizens are protected, unless the narrative of suspicion stops, unless Kashmiris outside their homeland feel safe and respected—then the damage will go beyond one incident. It will ripple into the next generation, the next migration, the next sense of belonging or not belonging.
The call is simple but urgent:
-
Hold the culprits accountable.
-
Safeguard the innocent.
-
Distinguish the few from the many.
-
Ensure no citizen is made to pay for someone else’s crime.
If this is done, it will mark not only a response to one blast—but a step towards genuine healing, trust and national togetherness.
Because Kashmiris deserve to live, move, study and work without fear. India deserves citizens who feel at home, not under suspicion. And a democracy deserves vigilance without injustice.
