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

The making of a self-made woman: How eighty sheep changed everything for Kalawati Ninama

By Vikas Meshram*  About forty-two kilometres from Rajasthan's Banswara district, in the tribal heartland of Ghatol block, lies the small village of Ubapana. This is where Kalawati Ninama, her husband Dhulji, and their four children make their home. Their days unfold much like those of their neighbours—bustling mornings, long hours of farm labour through the afternoon, and evenings spent tending livestock. For this family, farming and livestock were once simply a means of putting food on the table. Today, they have become the sturdy foundation of something far greater: genuine self-sufficiency.

Ahmedabad world’s least climate resilient major city: AlphaGeo study

By Rajiv Shah  A new study has ranked Ahmedabad as the least climate-resilient major city in the world , highlighting a dangerous gap between the city’s extreme physical vulnerability to climate hazards and its capacity to adapt. Cited by The New York Times , the analysis, conducted by geospatial artificial intelligence firm AlphaGeo , places the Indian city at the top of a list of global urban centres most exposed to climate risk.

India has spent billions on skilling. Where are the jobs?

By Vikas Gupta   India loves the photograph of a certificate ceremony. A minister on a stage. A banner bearing the word “skill.” Young people holding folders that promise a future. It is a reassuring image because it tells us the problem has a manageable answer: train the young, make them job-ready, and work will follow.