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

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Hoping against despair after Myanmar President’s visit to India

By Nava Thakuria  Myanmar President U Min Aung Hlaing’s five-day official visit to India from 30 May to 3 June 2026 drew attention both in New Delhi and in India’s northeastern region, where policymakers and residents closely follow developments in the neighbouring country. The visit was significant because it touched on several issues of mutual concern, including security cooperation, border management, connectivity projects, trade, and regional stability.

Beyond data: The economist who refused to remain in the ivory tower

By Vikas Meshram   There are few people who are born into privilege yet choose to dedicate their lives to the cause of the poor. Jean Drèze is one such individual. Born on January 22, 1959, in Leuven, Belgium, into the family of a distinguished economist, Drèze has become one of the most influential voices in the study of poverty, inequality, and social policy in India. Having lived in India since 1979, he adopted Indian citizenship in 2002 and has since played a pivotal role in shaping some of the country's most important welfare initiatives.