Migrant workers targeted in Kashmir
Two migrant workers, Deepak Ratray and Bopinder, were killed in an attack at a brick kiln in the Kulgam region of occupied Kashmir on July 31, 2026. Both men were from the Indian state of Chhattisgarh and were shot at close range by a gunman. The incident quickly undermined the Indian government's claim that the region has achieved peace and is free from terrorism.
The government's response was predictable, as it quickly blamed a group called The Resistance Front. Indian investigators label this group as a front organization for the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba. However, the circumstances of the attack contradict the official story that terrorism has been completely eliminated from the Valley.
Challenging the official narrative
Farooq Abdullah, a former chief minister of the region, was among those to challenge the government's claims. Speaking to the press in Anantnag, he questioned, 'If terrorism has ended, who is doing the killing?' Abdullah also asked why such violence occurs specifically when Kashmiris are asserting their rights.
The attack occurred shortly after a public demonstration for statehood in New Delhi at the Jantar Mantar. Abdullah saw this timing as significant and not random. More people in the Valley are beginning to share his view that the incident is connected to these demands.
Historical and legal complexities in Kashmir
The ongoing crisis in Kashmir traces back to the way the region became part of India. At the time of Partition, Jammu and Kashmir was a Muslim-majority princely state under the rule of the Hindu Dogra maharaja, Hari Singh. The maharaja did not initially align with Pakistan. When the region faced an invasion it could not resist alone, he turned to India for military assistance. However, India's help came only after the state formally acceded to it, with a promise that the final political status of the region would be decided by a future plebiscite.
This promise, echoed in UN resolutions soon after, was never fulfilled. Decades have passed, and the region is still divided by the Line of Control, a border that continues to separate families and communities. Despite repeated calls for a plebiscite, neither India nor Pakistan has taken steps to resolve the issue as agreed.
The year 2019 marked a major shift in the Indian government's approach. It unilaterally revoked the special autonomous status granted under Article 370, effectively ending the region's statehood and dividing it into two Union Territories. This was part of what Amnesty International described as a 'sustained legal siege' on local civil society, including journalists, lawyers, and activists.
The human rights situation in the region has been extensively documented. In June 2018, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights published its first report on the conflict in Kashmir. It detailed widespread human rights abuses, including torture, sexual violence, enforced disappearances, and excessive use of force by Indian security forces. A 2019 follow-up report found that civilian casualties may have been the highest in more than a decade, with over 160 civilians killed in that year alone. Many of these deaths were attributed to Indian security forces and armed groups.
In response to these findings, the Human Rights Watch noted that neither India nor Pakistan had acted on the earlier recommendations. The Indian government's outright rejection of the UN's findings highlighted its unwillingness to address its own human rights record in the region.
The situation has continued to deteriorate since 2019. According to reports from human rights groups, conditions have worsened, with stricter policies being enforced. The Kashmir Press Club was forcibly closed in 2022, and journalists and activists have faced arbitrary travel bans, prolonged detentions, and repeated interrogations. These actions have been compounded by a lack of transparency and accountability.
The government's narrative of peace and normalcy does not align with the lived experiences of Kashmiris. For many, the reality remains one of repression and unmet promises. The Kulgam attack highlights the growing tension between this official portrayal and the documented human rights violations occurring in the region.
The incident raises important questions about why such violence continues, especially when Kashmiris are increasingly expressing their demands for self-determination. Whether the attackers were from local groups, external actors, or the security forces themselves, the pattern remains disturbing. At this point, the frequency of such incidents, particularly during moments of heightened activism, makes the connection seem too clear to ignore.
A government that claims to have full control over its borders cannot also claim to be unaware of the causes behind civilian casualties. It is difficult to see how these conflicting claims can both be true. As the people of Kashmir continue to challenge the status quo, the contradictions in the official narrative will become harder to sustain.