By Altaf Hussain Wani
In August 2019, New Delhi executed its most far-reaching intervention in Jammu and Kashmir since independence. By revoking Articles 370 and 35A, the Modi government dismantled the region’s limited autonomy and split it into two union territories. Framed as a constitutional correction, it was in reality a political project: centralize control, alter the demographic balance, and weaken Kashmiri self-rule.
The changes came quickly. New domicile laws granted residency to outsiders; revised land policies opened the territory to non-local ownership. For many Kashmiris, this was not reform but demographic engineering — a precursor to settler colonialism designed to marginalize the indigenous majority in its own homeland.
Electoral boundaries were redrawn through a Delimitation Commission widely criticized as unconstitutional. The result tilted representation toward Hindu-majority Jammu at the expense of the Muslim-majority Valley, while increasing reserved seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. To critics, it was a calculated gerrymander to secure the BJP’s political base while diluting Kashmiri representation.
Under this new order, elections have become largely symbolic. The recent polls revealed the BJP’s inability to win over the Valley’s electorate, which backed regional parties such as the National Conference. Yet even these victories were hollow. Real power rests with a lieutenant governor appointed by New Delhi, leaving the elected assembly and chief minister as democratic window dressing.
The demand for restoring statehood and meaningful autonomy now unites Kashmiri political parties. But the Modi government has offered only vague assurances, avoiding a clear timeline. Political leaders remain jailed, dissent is criminalized, and the press operates under intimidation. Public trust in institutions has eroded so deeply that dialogue feels performative.
The justice system has not escaped this political climate. The National Investigation Agency’s push for the death penalty for Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front chairman Muhammad Yasin Malik — already serving a life sentence — has stirred fears of politically motivated justice. The case recalls the controversial 2013 execution of Afzal Guru, widely viewed as driven by political expediency rather than due process. Such prosecutions reinforce the perception that courts are being drawn into partisan agendas.
For the BJP, this approach serves multiple purposes: consolidating its nationalist base, fulfilling a long-standing ideological promise, and demonstrating unyielding control over a historically restive region. Yet it is also a gamble. The failure to secure electoral legitimacy in the Valley underscores the limits of coercive integration. International criticism — from rights groups to global media — has tarnished India’s image as the world’s largest democracy, a reputation that underpins its strategic partnerships.
Prime Minister Modi’s once unassailable political standing is showing strain. Policy missteps elsewhere, combined with persistent unrest in Kashmir, have given both domestic opposition and foreign observers fresh grounds for doubt. The recent military flare-up with Pakistan has further raised the stakes, fueling concerns about whether New Delhi’s hard line is delivering security or deepening instability.
Kashmir’s future is not yet sealed. A credible path toward stability still exists: restore statehood, hold genuinely free elections, release political prisoners, and reverse policies that threaten the region’s demographic character. Such measures would not only address local grievances but also reaffirm India’s constitutional commitments at a time when its democratic reputation is under close scrutiny.
The international community cannot remain passive. India’s democratic credentials invite — and warrant — scrutiny. Its partners, from Washington to Brussels, have both the leverage and the responsibility to press for a political settlement that respects Kashmiri rights and aspirations. While outside pressure alone cannot resolve the dispute, it can help create space for dialogue that has been absent since 2019.
The BJP’s gameplan in Kashmir is transparent: rewrite the political rules to entrench control. What remains uncertain is whether this strategy will deliver stability or entrench division and erode India’s democratic fabric.
This is more than a territorial dispute; it is a test of the republic’s core values. India now faces a rare opening to move toward resolution by responding positively to Pakistan’s call for talks. The recent military clash between the two countries — a direct consequence of New Delhi’s intransigence — has only strengthened voices advocating a militant solution, a path that promises greater instability for the region and beyond.
Choosing dialogue over defiance would not be a concession but an affirmation of India’s stated commitment to peace, democracy, and constitutionalism. The choice will shape Kashmir’s future, determine the trajectory of India-Pakistan relations, and define the moral standing of India itself.
(The writer is Chairman Kashmir Institute of International Relation (KIIR) He can be reached at saleeemwani@hotmail.com).
