A Kashmir devoid of its unique Kashmiriyat represents not merely an abstraction but rather an impractical political illusion
MORE than six years after the sudden abrogation of its special constitutional status on August 9, 2019, Jammu and Kashmir continues to await restoration of its full statehood. The Centre’s decision to revoke Articles 370 and 35A, reorganising the former state into two Union Territories under direct central administration, fundamentally transformed the region’s political, legal, and social landscape.
The Union government deployed additional military and paramilitary units, imposed curfews in multiple districts, and suspended communication networks. The Amarnath Yatra was suddenly halted, necessitating the evacuation of thousands of pilgrims. Simultaneously, political leaders, journalists, and civil society activists were subjected to preventive detention, contributing to an atmosphere of apprehension and expectation both within Jammu and Kashmir and nationwide. Discussions among political analysts and media representatives suggested significant changes to Article 370, but the scale and irrevocability of the decision ultimately surprised even veteran observers.
On the morning of August 5, 2019, as Parliament was called to order, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha and was swiftly passed after a brief debate. Although it seemed improbable that the bill would clear the Upper House, given that the ruling coalition lacked a majority. But several opposition parties – many of whom claim to uphold secularism and federalism – refrained from issuing whip. This ambiguous strategy allowed some members to support the bill while others facilitated its passage by orchestrating walkouts. The Indian National Congress played a significant role in this process, with several senior leaders, including Janardan Dwivedi, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Milind Deora, Deepender Hooda, and Bhubaneswar Kalita, publicly supporting the legislation. Over the next two days the bill was debated and passed in the Lok Sabha and hurriedly received presidential assent on August 9.
The ideological underpinnings of the 2019 constitutional reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir can only be fully grasped by examining the historical stance of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) regarding the region. Since the end of British colonial rule, the RSS and its affiliated entities have consistently promoted a vision of Kashmir that emphasises the desire for territorial integration, while simultaneously exhibiting discomfort with its Muslim-majority demographic and unique cultural identity. The aspiration for Kashmir as a territory often comes at the expense of appreciating Kashmiriyat—its pluralistic values, historical narrative, and political autonomy—which is frequently viewed as a hindrance to the RSS’s broader objectives. This tension has manifested in a clear preference for political representation from minority groups, notably Kashmiri Pandits and Dogras. Therefore, the events of 2019 must be contextualised within this ongoing ideological framework.
At the time the bill was passed, Jammu and Kashmir was under President’s Rule, overseen by a centrally appointed governor. Just months earlier, the region was governed by a coalition between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), led by Mehbooba Mufti. Although the coalition collapsed in 2018 due to the BJP’s withdrawal of support, the party had already established a strong presence within administrative and bureaucratic structures. Whether the regional leadership fully anticipated the subsequent trajectory is a topic of debate, but it is clear that the groundwork for central intervention had been firmly established.
Jammu and Kashmir’s demographic landscape presents a complex challenge to monolithic political frameworks. Out of its 20 districts, 16 have a Muslim majority, with the community accounting for approximately 70% of the region’s population of about 13.8 million. The Kashmir Valley itself is predominantly Muslim, with over 95% adherence. This demographic reality is complemented by Kashmir’s unique linguistic, cultural, and civilisational attributes, profoundly shaped by Sufi traditions and syncretic practices over centuries. Key sacred sites such as the Hazratbal shrine and the Vaishno Devi temple embody shared religious significance, illustrating a confluence of faiths. Additionally, Muslims play a pivotal role in the organisation and management of the Amarnath Yatra, underscoring the intertwined nature of these traditions. Together, these elements form the essence of Kashmiriyat, characterised by a lived pluralism that bridges religious divides.
This pluralistic legacy has often been met with scepticism by ideological currents advocating cultural uniformity. Rather than directly addressing demographic realities, successive government policies have sought, implicitly or explicitly, to impede the educational and economic progress of the Muslim majority. Notably, during the 2019 reorganisation, Jammu and Kashmir ranked seventh among India’s states across various academic and commercial indicators, surpassing several states led by the BJP. However, since then, these achievements have gradually diminished.
Concerns regarding the current socio-political climate in Jammu and Kashmir were articulated with heightened urgency in a report by the “Concerned Citizens Group”, which visited Kashmir for the 11th time last October. Its delegation included former External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha, policy analyst Sushobha De, retired Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak, and senior journalist Bharat Bhushan. The team observed a pervasive and troubling silence throughout the region—one that it characterised as more ominous than reassuring. Through their interactions with political leaders, journalists, traders, students, and civil society organisations, the delegation members identified a society straddling the challenges posed by a weakened regional administration and an increasingly centralised authority structure.
Reports indicate a systematic pattern of marginalisation and exclusion from official briefings experienced by journalists. Traders have highlighted significant disruptions in supply chains and agricultural losses estimated at nearly ₹2,000 crore within a single year. Students have shared numerous accounts of violence and discrimination encountered by Kashmiri youth outside their region. Civil society organisations have expressed growing concern regarding perceived deliberate attempts to undermine Kashmiri cultural identity. Furthermore, administrative practices, particularly the appointment of senior officials lacking familiarity with the local language and context, have exacerbated feelings of alienation among the population.
One of the most concerning issues is the extensive use of preventive detention, which has led to the transfer of thousands of young Kashmiris to prisons outside the region. This practice makes it exceedingly difficult for them to access legal recourse and maintain contact with their families. Authority is heavily centralised in the office of the Lieutenant Governor, who oversees both the police and security forces. Additionally, the report highlights the alarming rise of drug abuse among Kashmiri youth, raising worries that narcotics are being subtly employed as tools for social control.
Kashmir continues to be one of the most heavily militarised regions in the world. A significant portion of India’s military presence is deployed there, alongside support from central armed police forces. For over three decades, approximately nine million civilians have lived in an environment characterised by a considerable military presence, further defined by the provisions of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Despite these extensive security measures, challenges related to militancy persist, as evidenced by recent incidents, including an attack in Pahalgam, which have had repercussions for the region’s vital tourism industry.
The region, marked by a legacy of conflict and facing urgent needs for reconciliation, has been subjected to coercive administrative strategies rather than fostering genuine governance. The historical parallels with Punjab’s counter-insurgency era are strikingly relevant. Although the surge in narcotics in Punjab may have inhibited militant mobilisation, it did not address the root political grievances that fuel unrest. In Kashmir, the intertwined social fabric, cultural resilience, and deep-rooted historical consciousness make such coercive approaches not only ethically indefensible but also politically counterproductive.
At its heart, the Kashmir conflict is fundamentally a battle over identity and dignity. The ideological agenda of Hindutva aims for territorial integration but fails to acknowledge the unique essence of Kashmiri identity. In contrast, Kashmiris are resolute in their desire not to exchange their distinct Kashmiriyat for mere political recognition. Since 2019, the central government’s approach has intensified feelings of mistrust and alienation, evident in the recent rise of separatist sentiments highlighted in various assessments.
The assertion that normalcy has been restored, as maintained by official narratives, raises significant concerns regarding the ongoing reluctance to reinstate full statehood for Jammu and Kashmir. This situation prompts several critical questions: Why has the commitment to political autonomy not been fulfilled? What accounts for the absence of constitutional protections akin to those afforded to other culturally distinct regions under Article 371? Furthermore, why has the long-standing promise to facilitate the dignified return of Kashmiri Pandits largely remained unrealised? Most importantly, why does the trust between the Kashmiri populace and the Indian state continue to diminish?
Efforts to instigate social, cultural, or demographic changes through administrative measures may impose a superficial sense of order; however, such strategies do not cultivate enduring peace or inclusive development. Sustainable stability is achieved not through coercive means but through recognition, dialogue, and mutual respect. A Kashmir devoid of its unique Kashmiriyat represents not merely an abstraction but rather an impractical political illusion.
____________
Dr Tasleem Ahmad Rehmani is president of Muslim Political Council of India and a prominent political analyst. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily subscribe to them.
