Objected to non-local tourists thronging J&K. and call this tourism as cultural invasion, by purpose and by design

The recent statement made by Aga Sayeed Ruhullah, Member of Parliament from Srinagar–Badgam, labeling the arrival of tourists in the Kashmir Valley as a form of “cultural invasion,” is not only disappointing but deeply disturbing. This is not just a political opinion—it is a serious and dangerous narrative that challenges the very ethos of national unity, democratic participation, and constitutional responsibility. Such a remark does not befit a Member of the Indian Parliament and deserves strong condemnation from every corner of the nation.

To equate tourism with aggression is both intellectually dishonest and politically irresponsible. Tourists are not invaders. They are citizens of this country, free to visit and explore every part of India, including Jammu and Kashmir, which is an inseparable and integral part of the Union of India. Their presence in the Valley symbolizes peace, normalcy, and a return to economic and social revival. Tourism brings employment, supports local artisans, promotes cultural exchange, and helps rebuild the confidence of a region long haunted by violence and unrest.

Statements like these raise serious questions about the intent and ideology of those who make them. What is so threatening about Indian citizens visiting a part of their own country? Why does the idea of economic prosperity, public interaction, and peaceful co-existence disturb certain politicians? Is it because it weakens the narrative of victimhood and isolation they have long relied upon for political relevance?

Such a viewpoint reflects the mindset of those who continue to remain trapped in the shadows of the past, where secessionist sentiments and anti-national rhetoric were used to manipulate the emotions of the people. This mindset has brought nothing but tragedy to the region—bloodshed, displacement, and destruction. The people of Jammu and Kashmir, especially the youth, have begun to reject this destructive path. They are yearning for progress, education, jobs, and development. They want to be part of India’s forward march, not held back by outdated and divisive ideologies.

The idea that Indian tourists are engaging in a “cultural invasion” is not only factually absurd but also morally offensive. Cultural interaction is the backbone of any diverse society. India, with its vast heritage and varied traditions, thrives on such exchanges. The people of Kashmir have always been known for their warmth and hospitality. Tourists from other states come to admire the natural beauty of the region, experience its unique culture, and contribute to its economy. Painting this as an invasion is an insult not just to them but to the very identity and dignity of Kashmir.

It is deeply unfortunate that a sitting Member of Parliament would use his position to make such divisive remarks. His duty is to build bridges, not walls; to promote peace, not suspicion. A person occupying such a constitutional post should rise above the temptations of narrow political narratives and instead work for the larger good of the region and the nation.

Parliamentarians are expected to be ambassadors of unity and custodians of national integration. When they speak, their words carry weight and influence. Misusing that platform to further polarizing and potentially inflammatory rhetoric is an abuse of the trust placed in them by the people. It reflects poorly not just on the individual but on the democratic institution they represent.

Such statements cannot and should not go unchallenged. The silence of certain political circles and intellectual communities on this matter is equally concerning. When leaders make inflammatory comments that undermine national unity, their peers and parties have a duty to respond with clarity and conviction. India’s strength lies in its unity and diversity, and any attempt to sow discord under the guise of political dissent must be firmly countered.

While Mr. Ruhullah has the right to express his opinion under the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, those rights also come with responsibilities. The freedom of speech does not give anyone the liberty to question the legitimacy of national integration or cast aspersions on the intentions of fellow citizens.

It is imperative that public representatives realize that their words have consequences. They must lead by example, especially in sensitive regions like Jammu and Kashmir, where every word can influence peace or provoke unrest. Leaders must work toward healing, rebuilding trust, and promoting development—not reigniting old wounds or nurturing outdated grievances.

The people of Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the rest of India, have suffered enough due to divisive politics. It is time to move forward with maturity, vision, and unity. Kashmir belongs to every Indian, just as every part of India belongs to Kashmir. Tourism, trade, and cultural exchange are signs of a healthy, integrated democracy—not threats to be feared.

In the end, the nation hopes that better sense will prevail. Mr. Ruhullah and others who share such views must introspect deeply. They must ask themselves whether they wish to be remembered as agents of change and peace, or as voices that tried to halt progress by peddling fear and mistrust. The choice is theirs—but the nation is watching, and history will remember