PM Modi will meet the families of Anashya and Himanshi Narwal, who were victims of the Pahalgam attack, according to sources.

.

.

After Pahalgam Terror Attack, Questions Arise About PM Modi’s Absence; Possible Meeting with Victims’ Families in Kanpur

On April 22, a terrorist attack struck the peaceful town of Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir, jolting the nation once again with the grim reality of terrorism. The incident, which left several security personnel and civilians dead, led to an immediate and strong response from Indian security forces. In what has been referred to as “Operation Sindoor,” India reportedly targeted terrorist camps across the border in Pakistan, specifically those harboring and training militants. Though details of the operation remain largely classified, sources have claimed that significant damage was inflicted on the infrastructure that supports cross-border terrorism.

In the aftermath of the attack, numerous political leaders, including the Chief Minister and opposition figures, were quick to visit the victims’ families. Their visits were intended to offer condolences, moral support, and reassurance that the nation stands by those who lost their loved ones. These leaders met with grieving family members, listened to their pain, and promised government assistance during these difficult times. However, a notable silence surrounded the figure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leading to a wave of public and political questions: Where was the Prime Minister? Why had he not addressed the nation or visited the bereaved families?

This silence did not go unnoticed. Critics questioned the absence of the Prime Minister from both public discourse and the ground situation, especially given the emotional and national significance of the event. Though Home Minister Amit Shah did visit Jammu and Kashmir soon after the attack to assess the situation and speak with affected families, the Prime Minister’s name was conspicuously missing from official communications.

Now, however, sources have indicated that Prime Minister Modi may be planning to meet the families of the victims privately. In particular, it is reported that he may soon meet Vinay Narwal, the husband of Himanshi Narwal, who was killed in the attack, as well as Anashya Dwivedi, the wife of another victim, Shubham Dwivedi.

While there has been no official confirmation from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), these reports have sparked speculation and interest across political and public spheres. Anashya Dwivedi, widow of the slain officer Shubham Dwivedi, has been vocal in her demand that the victims of the Pahalgam attack be officially recognized as martyrs. According to her, this recognition is not only a matter of honor for the deceased but also a symbol of national unity and respect for those who sacrificed their lives in the line of duty.

Anashya’s call has been echoed by her father-in-law, Sanjay Dwivedi, who also insisted on meeting with the Prime Minister to personally appeal for martyr status for his son. The Dwivedi family resides in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, which has led to speculation that the Prime Minister may meet them during his scheduled visit to the city. Modi is set to address a public gathering in Kanpur on May 30 as part of a series of political rallies across West Bengal, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh.

During this visit, it is expected that the Prime Minister will inaugurate several development projects and interact with local leaders and the public. If the reports are accurate, he may use this opportunity to meet privately with the Dwivedi family. Such a meeting could serve multiple purposes—providing personal comfort to a grieving family, acknowledging their sacrifice, and possibly making policy announcements about the status of the victims.

The demand for martyr status for those killed in the Pahalgam terror attack has been growing steadily. Families of the victims argue that their loved ones died not in an accident or through natural causes, but while serving the nation and protecting its citizens from terrorist threats. According to them, this distinction should be enough to warrant official recognition as martyrs, which comes with both symbolic and material benefits.

Anashya Dwivedi, in her public appeals, emphasized that the military and security forces serve not for any political party but for the country. She urged all political parties to rise above partisanship and support the cause of honoring those who defend the nation. Her statements resonated with many Indians, especially in the wake of continued terrorist threats and the recurring loss of life among soldiers and security personnel.

The possible meeting between Prime Minister Modi and the victims’ families, therefore, carries significant emotional and political weight. On one hand, it would be a gesture of compassion and acknowledgment toward those who have suffered an irreparable loss. On the other, it may also help the government mitigate criticism about its response and perceived delay in connecting with the families of the deceased.

It is worth noting that this is not the first time such questions have been raised about the Prime Minister’s response to major national tragedies. In past incidents too, Modi has been criticized for either delayed reactions or opting for indirect engagement rather than face-to-face meetings. However, his supporters argue that his focus is often on action and long-term strategy rather than public displays of sympathy.

As of now, the country waits to see how this narrative unfolds. If Prime Minister Modi does indeed meet with the Dwivedi and Narwal families in Kanpur, it could set a precedent for how the central government engages with victims of terrorism in the future. The recognition of these victims as martyrs could also influence policy changes around compensation, national honors, and posthumous awards for those killed in similar circumstances.

PLAY VIDEO:

In conclusion, the Pahalgam terror attack has reignited a debate about how India recognizes and supports its heroes—both living and fallen. The reported plans for the Prime Minister to meet with grieving families may signal a more compassionate approach in dealing with such tragedies. Yet, until an official confirmation is made and actions are taken, the public and political scrutiny will likely continue. The government now stands at a critical juncture where words alone are not enough; the country is watching for meaningful steps that honor the sacrifices made in the defense of the nation.