Indianisation of Kashmir

2026-02-24 - 22:23

THE question of Kashmir has never been merely a territorial dispute; it has always been a question of identity, demography, political will and the fundamental right of a people to determine their own future. In recent years, however, a new dimension has emerged that many observers describe as the “Indianization of Kashmir” — a systematic effort to alter not only the administrative and constitutional framework of the region but also its demographic and cultural character. Since the unilateral revocation of Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution in August 2019 by the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the former state of Jammu and Kashmir has undergone sweeping structural changes. What was once recognized as a disputed territory with special constitutional status has been downgraded into a Union Territory, directly governed from New Delhi. This move did not merely change a legal provision; it fundamentally transformed the relationship between Kashmir and the Indian Union. One of the most debated aspects of this transformation is the introduction of new domicile laws. For decades, Article 35A safeguarded land ownership and employment rights for permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir. Its removal has opened the door for Indian citizens from other states to acquire domicile status, purchase land, seek government employment and establish long-term residence in the region. Critics rightly argue that this policy shift is not accidental but strategic. They contend that facilitating the settlement of non-Kashmiri Indian citizens in the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley aims to gradually alter the demographic balance. The fear is that demographic engineering could reshape electoral constituencies, dilute the political voice of the indigenous population and ultimately influence any future political settlement or plebiscite — should such an exercise ever materialize. The Governance structures further reinforce the perception of centralized control. The reorganization of the region into a Union Territory means that real authority rests with the Lieutenant Governor, appointed directly by New Delhi. The Chief Minister’s role, in practical terms, is constrained within a framework where key powers—law and order, land and administrative oversight—remain under federal authority. In effect, local governance has been reduced to a symbolic layer, while decisive authority resides with the central government. Security presence in the region continues to be one of the highest in the world. Military and paramilitary deployments dominate daily life, reinforcing the sense that political questions are being managed through administrative and security mechanisms rather than through meaningful political dialogue. Restrictions on media, periodic internet shutdowns and detentions of political leaders have further deepened concerns about democratic space in the region. Beyond governance and demography, economic restructuring also forms part of the broader transformation. Investment summits, industrial policies and infrastructure projects are being promoted as development initiatives aimed at integrating Kashmir fully into the Indian economic mainstream. While development is often welcomed by ordinary citizens seeking jobs and stability, which raise questions whether economic incentives are being used to normalize political changes that lack local consent. Land laws have also been amended to allow non-agriculturists and outsiders to purchase property in certain circumstances. For a region where land ownership has historically been tied closely to identity and heritage, this marks a profound shift. Opponents of these changes argue that land transfer to outsiders could, over time, reshape the cultural and social landscape of the Valley. At the heart of the debate lies the principle of self-determination. The United Nations resolutions envisioned a plebiscite to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to decide their future. Decades later, the political reality remains frozen, while unilateral administrative measures continue to redefine the region’s status on the ground. If demographic composition is significantly altered, any future referendum—hypothetical as it may seem today—would occur under entirely different conditions than those originally envisioned. The long-term consequences of the current trajectory remain uncertain. Demographic transformation, centralized governance and political restructuring may consolidate India’s administrative control, but they also risk deepening alienation among sections of the population. History suggests that identity-based conflicts rarely disappear through structural absorption alone. Kashmir remains more than a piece of territory—it is a question of people, history and political aspiration. Any sustainable solution must engage honestly with these realities rather than attempting to reshape them unilaterally. —The writer, a Major retired, is based in Ghaziabad, Azad Kashmir. (chinar12@gmail.com)