Duped former colleague arrested for murdering Dubai-based businessman during India visit

Srinagar: The Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led union government’s explanation for the lack of security at the site of Tuesday’s deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam has triggered widespread skepticism, with local officials and tourism stakeholders offering accounts that sharply contradict the government’s claims.

At an all-party meeting in New Delhi on Thursday, the Central government reportedly informed lawmakers that Baisaran meadow — where 26 civilians were killed — was not officially open to tourists until June. The absence of police and paramilitary presence, they argued, was due to this status.

However, investigations on the ground reveal a very different reality.

Baisaran meadow — popularly known as "Mini Switzerland" — remains accessible to tourists for most of the year. According to local tour operators, pony ride associations, and tourism officials, the area typically stays open except during peak winter months when snowfall blocks access.

"Tourists have been visiting Baisaran daily this season. No police clearance or special permission has ever been required," said Sheikh Mohammad Sultan, senior tour operator and President of the Indian Association of Travel & Tourism Experts (Kashmir chapter). "Nearly 70 percent of visitors to Pahalgam make it a point to visit Baisaran."

Further evidence lies in the operational signboard installed by the Pahalgam Development Authority at the meadow's entrance, listing an entry fee of ₹35 per person. Officials confirmed that this fee collection is outsourced annually through auction — a clear indication that the site was officially functioning and welcoming tourists at the time of the attack.

"Infrastructure projects have been developed for Baisaran tourism, and more are in the pipeline. Visiting Baisaran has never required security clearance or police authorization," a tourism official said on condition of anonymity.

The lack of security now stands under intense scrutiny.

The dirt track connecting Pahalgam town to Baisaran was reportedly unguarded, with only four unarmed personnel from an auxiliary wing of the Jammu and Kashmir Police stationed there. The nearest Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) camp was nearly five kilometers away — a critical gap that likely delayed the emergency response.

According to official sources, the first CRPF responder reached the attack site almost an hour later, with reinforcements arriving more than ninety minutes after the assault had ended.

Locals like Waheed Ahmad, president of the Pony Operators’ Association in Pahalgam, expressed concern over the lack of vigilance despite Baisaran’s heavy tourist footfall.

"We have been taking tourists to Baisaran for decades without ever needing police permission. But given today’s environment, one would expect much better security," Ahmad said.

Eyewitness videos and photographs from just days before the attack show tourists visiting Baisaran in significant numbers, enjoying pony rides and the vibrant spring bloom — further undermining the Centre’s assertion that the area was "closed" to visitors.

The glaring contradictions have fuelled growing suspicions that authorities failed to adequately assess the threat level, despite intelligence warnings about potential attacks targeting Kashmir’s fragile tourist season.

Bengaluru: The leaked contents of Karnataka’s long-awaited caste census suggest a significant policy shift—extending the creamy layer rule to Category 1 castes under the backward classes reservation list. This category includes some of the most disadvantaged nomadic and microscopic communities.

The commission, headed by Jayaprakash Hegde, has reportedly recommended that the creamy layer policy—already applied to categories 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B—be extended to Category 1. The report notes that some groups within Category 1 have achieved considerable progress socially, economically, educationally, and politically, thus justifying the introduction of a filtering mechanism.

The panel emphasized the growing inequality within Category 1 itself, stating that children from impoverished farming and labourer families are unable to compete with the children of wealthier households in the same category.

“The competition is stiff here and there is a threat that this category may become one populated by the rich in due course if the creamy layer policy is not implemented,” the report reportedly states.

It further underlines that to fulfil the constitutional goal of equitable opportunities, the policy must be introduced across all categories of backward classes, including Category 1.

In a controversial statement that has sparked alarm among legal experts and constitutional scholars, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judiciary for allegedly overstepping its bounds, particularly targeting the Supreme Court’s recent verdict that set deadlines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

“We cannot have a situation where courts direct the President,” Mr. Dhankhar said, suggesting that the judiciary is interfering with the powers of the executive. He further described Article 142 of the Constitution — which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do "complete justice" — as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7.”

This incendiary metaphor has drawn backlash for implying that judicial independence — a cornerstone of democracy — is somehow hostile or dangerous. Critics argue that such rhetoric undermines public trust in the judiciary and risks damaging the careful separation of powers between branches of government.

While addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns, the Vice President also referred to a serious incident involving a Delhi High Court judge, Yashwant Varma, from whose residence a large amount of cash was allegedly recovered in March. He questioned the delayed disclosure of the incident and criticized the absence of an FIR against the judge.

“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary, including the one before you... But if it is Judges, FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in the Judiciary, but that is not given in the Constitution,” he argued.

He went on to question why judges, unlike the President and Governors, appear to enjoy immunity not explicitly provided in the Constitution.

“If the event had taken place at his house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now it is not even a cattle cart,” he remarked, criticizing the pace of response and investigation.

Why These Remarks Are Dangerous

While scrutiny of public institutions is necessary in a democracy, the Vice President’s remarks are concerning for several reasons:

1.    Undermining Judicial Authority: By calling Article 142 a "nuclear missile," the Vice President risks portraying the judiciary as a threat rather than a guardian of constitutional rights.

2.    Challenging Separation of Powers: The suggestion that courts should not “direct” the President could erode judicial checks on executive inaction or overreach, especially when constitutional responsibilities are being delayed or ignored.

3.    Eroding Public Confidence: As the Vice President of India — also the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha — such statements carry institutional weight. Attacks on judicial legitimacy can embolden other political actors to disregard court rulings, weakening the rule of law.

4.    Threatening Judicial Independence: Implying that judges should be more easily prosecuted, without proper due process and internal accountability, could be seen as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

5.    Fueling Distrust During Sensitive Times: At a moment when public trust in institutions is essential, these remarks may sow unnecessary suspicion and politicize judicial matters that require careful and independent handling.

The Vice President’s speech has ignited a vital conversation about accountability and judicial conduct. However, framing the judiciary as a rogue institution and questioning its constitutional powers without nuance is fraught with danger. Safeguarding democracy requires mutual respect and balance among all pillars of governance — executive, legislature, and judiciary. When this balance is disturbed through political rhetoric, it threatens not just institutions, but the very foundation of constitutional democracy.