The latest threat to Kashmiri Pandit employees in the Valley is not just the second such warning to surface within weeks, but also because it comes against a wider pattern of targeted violence that has again exposed the vulnerability of people seen as outsiders or minorities in Kashmir.
A fresh poster, purportedly issued by an outfit calling itself the United Liberation Council (ULC) and dated August 23, has circulated on social media naming Kashmiri Pandit employees and, unusually, providing personal details including addresses and vehicle numbers. The All PM Package Employees Forum has sought an urgent review of security at workplaces, homes and transit routes. Security agencies have yet to verify the poster’s authenticity, however.
The significance lies in the repetition. An earlier threat had surfaced only about two weeks ago, warning Kashmiri Pandit employees working in the Valley to “change their ways”. The latest communication therefore does more than revive an old fear: it raises questions about whether the machinery responsible for protecting vulnerable communities is sufficiently alert to warning signs before threats translate into attacks.
Responding to the latest threat, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah told reporters that “the law and order, police and intelligence agencies should not take these things lightly” and said they must establish where the threats are coming from. “It is a big responsibility of the police to keep our employees safe,” he said.
In 2022, Kashmiri Pandit government employees, including Rahul Bhat and teacher Rajni Bala, were among those targeted. But the current security picture extends beyond Kashmiri Pandit employees. On July 22, head constable Ashiq Hussain Qureshi was shot dead in Anantnag while deployed for Amarnath Yatra security.
Just days later, two migrant labourers from Chhattisgarh – Deepak Ratray and Bhupendra Bhaina – were shot at a brick kiln in Kulgam. Both eventually died. The attack triggered fear among other migrant workers, with reports describing shuttered brick kilns and labourers worried about whether it was safe to remain in Kashmir.
Taken together, these incidents complicate any easy narrative of a return to normalcy. The issue is not merely the number of attacks but the selection of victims: a policeman in a public place, migrant workers at a workplace, and now minority employees whose names and addresses are allegedly being circulated.
There is another dimension to the problem. Threats that identify individuals by name, workplace, address, or vehicle can have an impact even when no immediate attack follows. They can force vulnerable workers to reconsider where they live, how they travel and whether they can continue working in areas where they have been posted. For migrant workers, such insecurity can quickly become an economic issue; for minority employees, it can revive memories of earlier targeted killings and displacement. The challenge for the administration, therefore, is to prevent fear itself from driving renewed separation.
Abdullah has previously argued that security cannot rely only on coercive measures. After the Anantnag killing, he cautioned that “demolishing houses or making thousands of arrests will not improve the situation; in fact, it will only worsen it”. He argued that “the real end will come only when the general public stands together against such violence”.
That is perhaps the larger test now. Kashmir’s security challenge is not only about eliminating armed militants; it is about restoring the confidence of those who work, live and travel in the Valley without being marked out because of their identity or place of origin. The latest threats may ultimately prove to be empty propaganda. But after the killings of a policeman and migrant labourers, and the targeted attacks of previous years, dismissing warnings until they become bloodshed would be the greater failure.
