On 13 July 2025, Omar Abdullah, a former Chief Minister and one of the most prominent pro-India leaders in Jammu and Kashmir, was forced to climb a wall to access the Martyrs’ Graveyard, an act that has become emblematic of the deeper political and moral crisis engulfing Indian-administered Kashmir. Barred from entering through the gate to offer prayers for the martyrs of 1931, Omar’s symbolic climb revealed the brutal transformation of the state under Indian rule: when even those aligned with the Indian constitution are silenced, the ordinary Kashmiri stands entirely voiceless.

When even those aligned with the Indian constitution are silenced, the ordinary Kashmiri stands entirely voiceless.

This year’s Martyrs’ Day underscored the extent to which Delhi has militarized not only the territory but also its historical memory. The repression has reached a point where commemorating the dead is considered a subversive act. Once the head of a democratically elected government, Omar Abdullah’s restrictions and his defiance expose the hollowness of Delhi’s claims to democracy in the region.

The message is unmistakable: your vote does not entitle you to dignity, and your elected leaders are mere prisoners of a central authority that views Kashmiri sentiment with suspicion and hostility. The erasure of Martyrs’ Day from official calendars and the widespread imposition of house arrests on political leaders reflect a regime increasingly afraid of its past. It is not the dead who haunt Delhi, but the living memory of those who remember them.

In Kashmir, graveyards have become sites of both mourning and resistance. The stones mark more than the fallen; they are silent witnesses to a history of betrayal, occupation, and denial. In this context, even mourning becomes a political act, and the act of remembrance is treated as sedition.

Graveyards have become sites of both mourning and resistance, where remembrance is treated as sedition.

Omar Abdullah’s remarks that the BJP has labelled mourning as resistance ring with painful accuracy. Under the current dispensation, any form of grief that does not conform to the nationalist script is viewed as anti-state. This state of affairs reveals the deep contradiction at the heart of India’s Kashmir policy: it demands allegiance but offers only alienation. It expects obedience but crushes dignity.

The paradox is clear: Delhi has erased Martyrs’ Day from its calendar, but it cannot erase it from the Kashmiri conscience. What we witnessed was not just an affront to Omar Abdullah but a broader insult to the democratic process. India’s Kashmir project has now moved from the ballot to the barricade. The political space is so tightly shut that even those who once advocated for accommodation within the Indian framework are being humiliated publicly. Delhi’s strategy appears to be one of total domination, subjugate the leadership, criminalize memory, and suppress dissent. But this is a strategy rooted in fear, not confidence.

Authoritarianism often reveals itself not through loud proclamations but in the quiet control of rituals and symbols. When a state fears graves, prayers, and mourning, it stands indicted by its insecurities. That Delhi has come to view even a flower laid on a martyr’s tomb as a threat says less about the mourners and more about the weakness of the state’s claim over Kashmir. This is not democracy. This is the politics of siege. Despite the clampdown, Kashmiris remain clear-eyed. They know their history. They know their pain. And they know that India’s attempts to manufacture loyalty through force, whether with bullets or bulldozers, are doomed to fail.

Delhi demands allegiance but offers only alienation, expecting obedience while crushing dignity.

Patriotism cannot be bought, and identity cannot be imposed. When graves become the only place where truth is still honored, it is a sign that the living are not yet free. Kashmiris remember because forgetting would mean surrender, and that is something they have never done.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.