What next for Kashmir?

We have been grappling with this question for more than 35 years, What next for Jammu and Kashmir? It is often coupled with another one, what’s the way forward?  We are not tired of doing this exercise every hour,  not that we want to revisit these questions every now and then but because of the imperatives of the situation; a situation that keeps on shifting with new challenges in its wake.

As we have stepped into 2025, the question still hangs whether we have mentally travelled into the new year of the new era. It is still our past that is keeping our clocks frozen in a particular time frame. The definition of the past, in the modern context, is drawn from pre-1947 era  when the princely state had a shape of a country. And, the 1947 also serves as a chilling reminder when the majestic state broke into two parts with one part falling to the aggression launched by Pakistan. Then there is, 1953-the year of arrest of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, followed by 1975  when he returned to power after  being in “political wilderness” for 22 years, and the start of  armed militancy  in 1990. A new chapter to the history was added on August 5, 2019 - the day Article 370 got removed after about 70 years of its controversial existence in the Constitution of   India. The state was also reorganized into two union territories.  The spell of August 5, 2019 is getting thicker by every passing day while all other narratives about J&K are fading fast.

But we have not stopped asking the question - what next?  Even if it has become mandatory to say and reaffirm that August 5, 2019 was a watershed moment in our history which delivered to us an all-time  way forward.  There may be many interpretations to that, but it needs to be accepted that the Indian nation, of which J&K is an integral part, has assumed new dimensions. Hitherto its geopolitical importance has submerged in the ages-old geo-cultural milieu.

The other day, Union Home Minister Amit Shah brought the vivid images, quoting from a recently released book on Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh, of this bondage in a very powerful speech. He traced the history which has traversed centuries and which clearly establishes that Kashmir and the rest of the country were not two separate entities.

The points raised by Home Minister were intended to tell the country that many age-old facts were subverted and suppressed with a design to create an alternative history. While stating so, he also underlined what next for Kashmir – terror-free region. There is a national consensus that J&K should be terror-free. Irrespective of its reduced geography and the political status, there is a desperate quest for fulsome peace.

The “terror-free J&K”, has different connotations. It was conceived as an ultimate goal in 1990s when the militancy had swept and swayed the landscape and the nation was gripped with fear of impending loss, which to be very honest, was not all about the rising number of youth landing into graves, or the threats to the territory, it was about losing the people who could speak for the nation. There was over-reliance on security measures, which meant more troops and more powers to them. This prism was reflective of the national security mindset. It continues to be the guiding factor that troops alone can turn around the situation and deliver peace to the place.

And peace so acquired or established would meet all parameters of national security. This could have been a best way forward, and had it been so today Kashmir would have been witnessing peace that it always aspired. The approach in 1990s was twofold – fight against militancy and open or covert dialogue to bring back a sense of normalcy. Today, it is different, there is intensified aggression against the gun cult, and the space gained is being used to erect the edifice of soft power. But the gaps still continue to stare at policy makers who are seeking to make that ideal situation a reality.

Kashmir is looking for ownership, both of its land and the people   through more soft-power steps. The idea is that the soft power should be the guiding post affecting a balance with the hard power. The two spaces have to coexist to regain normalcy. But soft power should be the dominating theme as J&K is keen to be respected in the nation-its land and society and institutions. This is about fostering an everlasting relationship on the basis of the cultural ethos of the whole of the nation approach, and not in the pure geopolitical and geo-strategic terms.

Even the political and strategic objectives call for involvement and active participation of the people. The fear of the government machinery is good, as that is a must to neutralize the men with guns and violence–oriented mindset, but greater endeavour should be in invoking the people’s faith in the system and the shared ethos.

Let me quote Home Minister that constitutional provisions do not bring integration – his reference was clear and targeted those theorists who believed that Article 370 was the all-time bridge between Jammu and Kashmir and the rest of the country. Its abrogation has proved these theorists and political groups wrong. It is entrenched in the soil of the nation. Those challenging this reality are getting reduced to a minority.

Amit Shah’s words that the nation will gain what all has been lost are important for J&K’s future. Those interpreting it as a suggestion to get back PoJK are undermining the overarching theme that Home Minister propounded. He was making it clear to the nation that apart from the territory and the people of PoJK back to the Indian map, is to restore the ethos that has been hurt over a long period of time. This is a strategic objective which will give a sense of completeness to the whole idea of Jammu and Kashmir and its deep and ancient connect with the idea of India. What next in Kashmir stands redefined, but there are miles to go.