Skip to main content

Neither radicalization nor heavy-handed control can fulfill Kashmiris' aspirations for freedom and dignity

By Dr. Manoj Kumar Mishra* 
Kashmir, once a vibrant confluence of cultures and religions, has over the years been consumed by unrestrained radicalization and violence. What Kashmir truly deserves is the chance to become a hub of trade and tourism—open, accessible, and flourishing with a soft border that allows people from around the world to visit and engage in commerce. In recent years, the Indian government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sought to promote infrastructure development and tourism in Kashmir through a policy of centralized control over militancy and radicalism, especially since 2019.
The brutal killing of 26 tourists in Pahalgam on April 22 this year was a grim reminder that radical elements can re-emerge violently whenever there are gaps in security, surveillance, or intelligence. While technological advancements and Artificial Intelligence offer India new tools to enhance security in the Valley, these do not necessarily justify tighter political and administrative control.
The partition of British India into India and Pakistan was based on the two-nation theory, which asserted that Hindus and Muslims constituted separate nations and should thus have separate states. Pakistan’s orchestration of tribal incursions into Kashmir soon after partition led the then ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, to sign the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947—legally integrating Kashmir into India.
India has since regarded Kashmir as an integral part of its territory. Though the region is predominantly Muslim, this is consistent with the secular ethos that India adopted as a foundational constitutional value after independence. Indian scholars have pointed out that India, as a secular democracy, has included more Muslims in its polity than many Muslim-majority countries, while also providing extensive constitutional protections for minorities.
Kashmir was declared a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan under the Simla Agreement of 1972, wherein both nations committed to resolving the matter through dialogue, excluding third-party involvement. Nevertheless, Pakistan has repeatedly sought to internationalize the issue and has cited UN Security Council resolutions advocating a plebiscite in the Valley. India, in turn, has highlighted Pakistan’s support for radicalism and terrorism in Kashmir as undermining any such process.
New Delhi has consistently presented evidence of Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism, citing incidents such as the Mumbai attacks, the assault on the Indian Parliament, and the strikes in Uri, Pathankot, and Pulwama—all allegedly originating from Pakistani soil and supported by its army and intelligence agency, ISI. The Indian government argues that such efforts aim to cloak externally engineered unrest in the Valley as an indigenous freedom movement.
India has conducted free and fair elections in Kashmir and promoted them as expressions of the people's democratic will to remain within the Indian Union. India's secularism, pluralism, and relatively robust democratic institutions offer a clear contrast to Pakistan's theocratic leanings, its flirtation with radical ideologies, and its weak political structures. However, in an effort to counter growing radicalization, India has shifted from a policy of accommodating autonomy to one of centralized governance, notably through the revocation of Article 370 and the downgrading of Jammu and Kashmir to Union Territory status. Yet neither radicalization nor heavy-handed control can fulfill the aspirations of Kashmiris for freedom and dignity.
Both those who fuel radicalism and those who impose excessive central authority must realize that Kashmir cannot be viewed merely as a strategic asset or a disputed territory. It must be seen as a land of people—of suffering and longing—yearning for greater autonomy, peace, and connection with the wider world. Only by embracing this human-centric perspective can lasting solutions begin to take shape.
---
*Senior Lecturer in Political Science, SVM Autonomous College, Jagatsinghpur, Odisha

Comments

TRENDING

Civil society at a crossroads: Service delivery vs. rights in the fight for social change

Counterview News   In the latest episode of the podcast Unmute , hosts Gagan Sethi and Minar Pimple convened a profound conversation with two veteran development practitioners to dissect a persistent tension within civil society: the perceived divide between service delivery and the struggle for rights. The episode, titled "Beyond Service Delivery: Civil Society, Rights, and the Politics of Social Change," featured Apoorva Oza , a development practitioner with decades of experience in rural development and institution-building, and Professor Dipa Sinha , a development economist known for her work on food, nutrition, gender, and social policy.

Grain vs. gasoline: How the global biofuel boom threatens India’s food and water security

By Rajiv Shah  A new report published by the international research and advocacy organization GRAIN has warned that the global resurgence of biofuels is triggering a dangerous dynamic of “more fuel, less food, more land grabs.” Driven by intersecting energy security concerns, geopolitical tensions, and aggressive decarbonization mandates, the expanding agrofuel industry is increasingly pitting corporate energy interests against global food security and indigenous land rights. 

Sikkim governor row: ALIFA asks centre to explain hurried appointment in Ankita Bhandari case

By A Representative   The All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) on Saturday expressed “immense pain and outrage” that even after four years and a national uproar, justice has not been fully delivered in the Ankita Bhandari murder case and that a ruling party politician facing allegations has been “gifted a high-ranking constitutional office.” In a statement, ALIFA extended “unflinching solidarity” to Ankita’s parents, who it said are “fighting for justice on the streets of Delhi,” and demanded that pending the CBI inquiry and judicial decision, the appointment of BJP leader Dushyant Kumar Gautam as Sikkim’s Governor be subject to “immediate presidential review.”