Dialogue with an Outraged Young Man

My phone kept ringing continuously. When I looked at the screen, I saw it was a very dear friend calling. Without even exchanging the usual greetings, he fired the first question in an agitated tone:

"Asif Sahib, what is happening in Kashmir? Why are you silent about it?"

At first, I thought he was referring to the elections in Azad Kashmir. I replied, "The elections have been held, and the encouraging aspect is that political decisions will now be made in legislative assemblies rather than on the streets."

He interrupted me immediately.

"I'm not talking about the elections. I'm talking about the people who have reportedly been killed in Kashmir. There is an uproar everywhere, yet you remain silent."

I responded, "If that has indeed happened, then it is certainly tragic and deserves condemnation."

Before I could finish my sentence, he became even more upset.

"Why are you saying 'if'? People have died, and you're still saying 'if.' Have you been bought off?"

I calmly replied, "I'm only saying that if the reports are accurate, then it is unquestionably wrong."

He grew angrier.

"Aren't you ashamed? Has your conscience died? You still insist on using the word 'if.' Don't you believe us? Have you all gone blind?"

It became clear to me that my friend was no longer willing to engage in a civil conversation. Since it was early in the morning, I could hardly advise him to consult a physician. Instead, I decided to offer what I jokingly considered "first aid."

I said:

"The reason I use the word 'if' is because we have seen people spread false claims before. During the November 26 events at D-Chowk, some claimed that sixty people had been killed, then eighty, then hundreds. Others circulated AI-generated images showing D-Chowk covered in blood, while some even shared fabricated pictures of vultures flying overhead, claiming they had gathered because of the dead bodies. Yet to this day, no one has presented the families of those alleged victims or even a verified list of their names. If such exaggerated or false claims could be made about an event in Islamabad, then it is only reasonable to verify reports coming from a distant location like Kashmir before accepting them as fact."

My "first aid" seemed to work. His tone softened, and he began speaking more calmly.

"So, are you refusing to condemn it?"

I answered:

"Not at all. I am saying that if innocent people have indeed been killed, it is unacceptable and should be condemned. At the same time, I have consistently maintained my opinion that this movement has been hijacked and no longer represents the objectives it originally claimed to pursue."

He asked,

"So you are that suspicious?"

I replied,

"Yes. I even believe that after the elections were successfully completed, those who wanted to pressure the state through this movement became frustrated, making it possible for misinformation or exaggerated narratives to emerge."

He then asked,

"Do you really believe the D-Chowk incident was fabricated?"

I replied,

"Why ask me? Ask Ali Amin Gandapur, whose own video statement is publicly available in which he said that warning shots were fired into the air rather than directly at protesters. He even remarked that had live rounds been fired directly, the casualties would have been far greater. If you still believe the earlier casualty figures were accurate, then present the names of those victims or allow their families to come forward."

At that point, he lost his temper once again.

"You're talking exactly like the Patowaris!"

With that, he abruptly ended the call.

I thanked God that the conversation had ended before it escalated any further.