Kashmir, a picturesque valley nestled in the Himalayas, has long been a focal point of contention between India and Pakistan. Despite its modest size, measuring approximately 89 by 25 miles, Kashmir’s strategic location, stunning landscapes, and unique cultural heritage have made it a region of immense geopolitical significance. Caught in the crossfire of historical rivalries and nationalist aspirations, Kashmir remains ensnared in a complex web of political and social challenges that date back over a century.

Princes and Politics
The modern history of Kashmir begins in 1846 when it was incorporated as a province into the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. This incorporation was the result of a treaty between Gulab Singh, a Dogra Hindu ruler from Jammu, and the British East India Company. Having assisted the British in defeating the Sikh Empire, Gulab Singh assumed the title of Maharaja, thereby asserting sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir, including the frontier regions of Ladakh and Gilgit. Like other princely rulers of the time, Gulab Singh accepted the paramountcy of the British Crown, maintaining a semblance of autonomy while acknowledging British supremacy.
Gulab Singh’s dynasty, however, faced internal challenges from the outset. His successor, Ranbir Singh, who ascended the throne in 1857, sought to consolidate the dynasty’s legitimacy by aligning it more closely with Hinduism. He revived laws banning cow slaughter, constructed temples, and patronized the translation of Hindu religious texts into Urdu and Persian. Additionally, Ranbir Singh implemented policies that favored the importation of non-Kashmiris, primarily Hindus from Jammu and Punjab, to manage the administration. These actions alienated the predominantly Muslim Kashmiri population, setting the stage for future unrest.

The discontent among Kashmiris culminated in the rise of Sheikh Abdullah in the 1930s. Emerging from a modest background, Abdullah became a charismatic leader who championed the cause of socio-economic justice within an Islamic framework. In 1932, he founded the Muslim Conference (MC) to advocate for the rights of Kashmiri Muslims. By 1938, the organization had evolved into the National Conference (NC), broadening its agenda to represent all Kashmiris regardless of religion, class, or sect. This shift aligned the NC with the secular, pluralistic nationalism of the Indian National Congress, envisioning Kashmir as a nation inclusive of Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs.
Despite outlining a comprehensive agenda for Kashmir’s future within an independent India, the NC’s efforts yielded only minimal concessions from the Dogra state. Repressive policies and attempts to undermine Abdullah’s leadership led to internal divisions. In May 1946, Abdullah launched the ‘Quit Kashmir’ agitation, demanding the abdication of Maharaja Hari Singh and the transfer of sovereignty to the people. His subsequent imprisonment removed him from the political scene during a critical period of India’s struggle for independence.

Jammu and Kashmir’s Choice
The British departure from India in August 1947 left behind two new dominions: India and Pakistan. Princely states like Jammu and Kashmir faced the daunting decision of choosing allegiance to either nation or pursuing independence. The geographic location of Jammu and Kashmir, lying between India and Pakistan, made its accession particularly contentious. Maharaja Hari Singh’s indecision was influenced by the region’s potential to join either country and his aspiration for Kashmir’s independence.
Tensions escalated in October 1947 when Muslims in Poonch and Gilgit revolted against Hari Singh, aligning with Pakistan. Pashtun tribesmen from Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province, with Pakistan’s tacit support, crossed into Kashmir to support these revolts. Faced with external aggression and internal rebellion, Hari Singh sought military assistance from India. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s interim prime minister, agreed to help only after Hari Singh signed a document of accession to India.
The Indian military’s intervention on October 27, 1947, successfully repelled the Pashtun raiders and secured Srinagar, the state capital. This military action marked the beginning of a full-scale war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. As the conflict intensified, the National Conference, led by the newly released Sheikh Abdullah, assumed control of the government, while Maharaja Hari Singh remained a nominal figurehead until his abdication in June 1949.
India took the Kashmir issue to the United Nations, seeking international intervention. The UN, influenced by both India and Pakistan’s claims, proposed a ceasefire and called for a plebiscite to determine Kashmir’s future. The ceasefire, effective January 1, 1949, resulted in the partition of Kashmir: India gained control over the Kashmir Valley, parts of Jammu, and Ladakh, while Pakistan took control of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. However, the proposed plebiscite remained elusive due to disagreements over preconditions, leaving Kashmir divided and its final status unresolved.

Democracy Denied
Following the partition, both India and Pakistan sought to legitimize their claims over Kashmir by crafting narratives that aligned with their national identities. India, presenting itself as a secular state despite its Hindu majority, highlighted Kashmir’s Muslim majority as evidence of its commitment to secularism. Conversely, Pakistan, envisioned as a homeland for Muslims, portrayed its claim over Kashmir as essential for completing its Islamic identity.
The people of Kashmir, however, found themselves marginalized in these grand geopolitical narratives. Both India and Pakistan established governments in their respective territories, often undermining local aspirations through controlled electoral processes. In India-administered Kashmir, the National Conference, under Sheikh Abdullah, initially held sway despite allegations of corruption and authoritarianism. India’s adoption of Article 370 in its 1949 constitution granted Jammu and Kashmir a degree of autonomy, allowing it to frame its own constitution and manage internal affairs.

As the possibility of a plebiscite faded, tensions within India-administered Kashmir escalated. Sheikh Abdullah, advocating for greater autonomy, was ousted from power in 1953 through a coup backed by the Indian government and placed under arrest. The subsequent governments gradually eroded Article 370, integrating Jammu and Kashmir more tightly into the Indian Union. Abdullah’s attempts to push for self-determination from behind bars led to the formation of the Plebiscite Front, but his efforts were stifled, and the region’s autonomy continued to diminish.
By the 1960s, dissatisfaction among Kashmiris grew as economic and political grievances remained unaddressed. The youth, disillusioned by unmet aspirations and governmental repression, began to agitate for change. Sheikh Abdullah’s brief release in 1964, intended to broker a solution with Pakistan, ended in disappointment following Nehru’s death. The Indira-Sheikh Accord of 1975 reaffirmed Jammu and Kashmir’s relationship with India under Article 370, effectively quashing hopes for self-determination and integrating the region further into India.

The Road to Insurgency
Sheikh Abdullah’s tenure as Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir until his death in 1982 was marked by attempts to balance autonomy with integration into India. Despite his efforts, allegations of nepotism and corruption tarnished his legacy, and his policies failed to quell the rising tide of dissent. The fragile peace unraveled as new generations of Kashmiris grew increasingly frustrated with economic stagnation, political repression, and human rights abuses.
In the mid-1980s, opposition to the National Conference coalesced into the Muslim United Front, which won state assembly elections in 1987. The Indian government, however, prevented the formation of a Muslim-led government by arresting its leaders, reinstating the National Conference with Delhi’s support. This blatant interference ignited a full-scale uprising against both the National Conference and the Indian government, signaling the beginning of a violent insurgency.
The insurgency saw the rise of militant groups like the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) and Hizbul Mujahideen (HM), which drew support from Kashmiris disillusioned with political avenues. Young men received training and arms from Pakistan, escalating the conflict into a bloody struggle. The Indian government’s heavy-handed military response further entrenched the conflict, turning the Kashmir Valley into a militarized zone and leading to widespread human rights violations.
By the mid-1990s, the insurgency had entrenched itself, with militants engaging in guerrilla warfare and terrorism. Pakistan’s support for extremist groups like Jaish-e-Muhammad, which sought broader Islamic objectives beyond Kashmir, complicated the conflict. The influx of weapons and the involvement of external actors exacerbated violence, making peace elusive and plunging Kashmir into prolonged instability.
Elections and Intifada
The turn of the 21st century brought a semblance of electoral politics back to Jammu and Kashmir. Mainstream parties like the National Conference and the newly formed People’s Democratic Party (PDP) sought to address the region’s grievances through democratic means. The PDP, in particular, adopted a ‘healing touch’ agenda, acknowledging separatist demands and attempting to bridge the gap between Kashmiris and the Indian state.
However, the underlying issues remained unresolved. Corruption, nepotism, and the impunity enjoyed by Indian security forces continued to plague governance in Kashmir. High-profile incidents, such as the 2009 rape and murder of two young Kashmiri women allegedly by Indian security personnel, fueled public anger and distrust. These incidents highlighted the disconnect between the elected governments and the aspirations of the Kashmiri people.
Public frustration culminated in the summer of 2010 with the ‘Kashmiri intifada,’ characterized by stone-pelting protests against security forces. The subsequent decade saw a shift in resistance, with Kashmiris expressing their dissent through social media, protest poetry, artistic endeavors, and participation in funerals of slain militants and ordinary citizens alike. This generational shift underscored a deep-seated alienation from both Indian authority and the ineffective separatist politics that had failed to deliver meaningful change.
The rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India further complicated the situation. Elected in 2014 and re-elected in 2019 with a significant parliamentary majority, the BJP pursued its long-standing campaign promises regarding Kashmir. In August 2019, the BJP government abrogated Article 370 through a presidential order, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special autonomous status. Concurrently, the region was bifurcated into two union territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, placing them under direct central government control.
This move effectively ended any remaining semblance of autonomy and was met with vehement opposition from Pakistan, which reiterated its claim over the entire region. However, Pakistan’s administration of its territories in Kashmir, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, has been marked by a lack of constitutional recognition and reliance on patron-client relationships to maintain control. These regions have sought greater integration into Pakistan while also demanding more autonomy to manage their own affairs, reflecting the complex and fragmented nature of governance in divided Kashmir.
Freedom Denied
Kashmir’s prolonged state of limbo can be traced back to the nature of the subcontinent’s decolonization. The promises of autonomous governance and self-determination were quickly overshadowed by the geopolitical ambitions of India and Pakistan, both of whom were unwilling to allow Kashmir an independent future on their shared borders. This mutual unwillingness has perpetuated the region’s division and the residents’ inability to determine their own destiny.
India and Pakistan, despite their numerous conflicts and divergent political paths, share a common stance: neither desires an independent Jammu and Kashmir. For India, maintaining control over Kashmir is seen as essential to its territorial integrity and strategic interests. For Pakistan, retaining influence over its portion of Kashmir is crucial to its national identity as a Muslim-majority nation. This shared stance ensures that Kashmir remains a point of contention, with both countries reluctant to compromise on their claims.
The people of Kashmir, caught between these two powerful nations, continue to live in uncertainty. Their lives are marked by violence, political repression, and economic hardship, with little hope for a peaceful resolution. The international community’s inability to mediate effectively has left Kashmir in a perpetual state of conflict, preventing the region from achieving the autonomy or independence that many of its inhabitants aspire to.
In conclusion, Kashmir’s status as a prisoner of history is a testament to the enduring legacies of colonialism, nationalism, and geopolitical rivalry. As India and Pakistan continue to assert their claims over the region, the people of Kashmir remain trapped in a cycle of conflict and disenfranchisement. Without a genuine commitment to self-determination and meaningful dialogue, Kashmir’s future remains uncertain, leaving its rich cultural tapestry and strategic importance as enduring symbols of its unresolved plight.