Indian Army chief Bipin Rawat has stated that, ‘ people who attempt to come to rescue of militants during anti-militancy operations will be treated as ‘Over Ground Workers’ of militants and those displaying Pakistani and IS flags will be dealt as anti-nationals. Rawat added that, they will face harsh actions’. Coming from the chief of the Indian Army, this statement not only is obnoxious but also bizarre. The reasons pertain to the very nature of the conflict in and over Kashmir. The conflict in Kashmir has bred a collective psycho- emotional condition that is estranged from the Indian Union. The corollary, given the various and varying permutations and combinations of the conflict, over a period of time, is that Kashmiris feel helpless and disempowered. The stone pelting that happens during and after encounters between militants and the army personnel or paramilitary forces is a reflection of the projection of this helplessness. In terms of the raising of ISIS or Pakistani flags, the premise appears to be to poke a finger into the eyes of the paramilitary or other forces. All these are but manifestations of the conflict that operates at many levels in Kashmir: psychological, emotional and tangible. Rawat by making a visceral statement is misreading the manifestation for the cause. It does not behoove the General to make statements of this nature given his vast experience especially in the context of Kashmir. In the final analysis, the conflict in and over Kashmir is a political one and it is in the domain of the political that the resolution of the broader conflict lies. In this domain, the military really has no role. Moreover, Rawat’s statement or more accurately threat , if it is intended to intimidate might have contra consequences by hardening the resolve of people who turn up during encounters. The reality in Kashmir is that a certain sentiment obtains here and this sentiment is broad and deep. Rawat’s threats besides stoking this sentiment, suggests that dealing with this sentiment has been outsourced to the various agencies that run the security dynamics of Kashmir. This goes against the very political nature of the conflict and undercuts claims of the political process in Kashmir. The increasing incidence of large numbers of people turning up during encounters should, instead of engendering a visceral and reflexive response should ideally have provoked deep thought in powers that be. The nature of this deliberation and reflection should catalyze all to institute a conflict resolution paradigm that redounds to the benefit of all. But , instead, the opposite has happened. This constitutes a travesty!