MLAs Demand Apology After Sunil Sharma’s Pir Panjal Remark | Kashmir Life

by Afreen Ashraf

SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly witnessed noisy scenes and a brief adjournment on Wednesday after alleged remarks by Leader of Opposition Sunil Sharma during a media interaction triggered protests across the House.

During his interview with Hindustan Times, Sharma said that there was no term as ‘Pir Panjal’ and he did not know much about the area.

The issue was raised immediately after Question Hour by MLA Iftikhar Ahmed, who demanded an apology from the Leader of Opposition, saying the reported statement had hurt the sentiments of people of Pir Panjal and other parts of Jammu province. Several MLAs supported the demand, leading to heated exchanges between the treasury and opposition benches. Sharma opposed the demand for an apology.

As protests intensified, Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather repeatedly appealed for order. With members moving into the Well of the House, the Speaker adjourned proceedings for 15 minutes.

Reacting to the alleged remarks, MLA Thanamandi Muzaffar Iqbal Khan said the statement had deeply hurt people in the Pir Panjal region. “Pir Panjal has its own identity and history,” he said, adding that the refusal to apologise reflected “arrogance”. He urged the Assembly to place a formal condemnation on record.

Khan said residents of border districts such as Poonch, Rajouri, Doda and Bhaderwah had made repeated sacrifices and stood with the nation during difficult times. He recalled the region’s suffering during past conflicts and said questioning its identity was unacceptable.

Cabinet Minister Javed Rana also criticised the remarks, calling them unfortunate and insensitive to a region with a long historical legacy. Referring to historical texts, he said Pir Panjal’s culture, heritage and contribution have been widely documented. He demanded a clear and public apology to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and to the House.

The exchanges subsided after the adjournment, but members across parties indicated the matter may be raised again when the House reconvenes.