Kashmir Six Years After Abrogation: Integration, Conflict, and Unresolved Stalemate

Kashmir occupies a singular and exceptional position, distinct from conventional geopolitical spaces. Its political landscape is equally unique, perpetually serving as the focal point for hyper-nationalist discourse and a stridently patriotic — often jingoistic — culture pervasive within the Indian media, political rhetoric, foreign policy, and cinematic representations.

Invariably, actions and narratives concerning ‘Kashmir’ unfold under the overarching headlines of “national security.” ‘Kashmir’ here transcends the geographical confines of the Valley. It signifies the entirety of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, incorporating Ladakh. Historians note this broader entity was frequently referred to metonymically as ‘Kashmir,’ reflecting the Valley’s disproportionate historical focus — a practice dating to its existence as an independent princely state.

Post-2019, Jammu and Kashmir exists as a centrally governed Union Territory (UT), distinct from Ladakh, which became a separate UT. This division resulted from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government’s decision on 5 August 2019 to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which had granted the erstwhile state special status. While J&K was not the only state with constitutional special provisions, its geopolitical reality elevates “national security” to paramount concern.

Geographically, J&K borders Pakistan, China, and Afghanistan. With two nuclear-armed neighbors — Pakistan, which views Kashmir as integral to its identity and controls part of the territory, and China, which asserts claims over Ladakh, sparking violent clashes — J&K is a prisoner of geography. This positioning renders it a frontline where Pakistan seeks to project influence through “all means necessary,” perpetuating cycles of violence that destabilize the region. Concurrently, Indian politicians often attribute Kashmiri “alienation” to historical policies: granting special status, engaging separatists in dialogue, and bilateral talks with Pakistan over the Kashmir conflict.

In this context, “national security” becomes the overriding imperative for New Delhi. Justifiable or not, this framework reduces the people of J&K to a binary: separatists or Indians. Such categorization transforms them into extensions of a political apparatus, rendering their grievance secondary to state imperatives. The intense politicization of Kashmir also commodifies its pain — exploited by mainland India’s news industry and electoral politics.

The Abrogation & Aftermath

On 5 August 2019, the government abrogated Article 370, bifurcating the state into the UTs of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. J&K was placed under unprecedented lockdown: politicians jailed or detained (including former Chief Ministers), communications blacked out, and movement restricted under curfew-like conditions.This unilateral move — fulfilling a BJP manifesto promise — effectively silenced local voices. Decisions were imposed, futures predetermined. J&K thus became the first Indian state demoted to UT status — twice over. Its people, long accustomed to endurance, bore this new chapter with characteristic patience — a silence often mistaken for acquiescence.

Mainland India erupted in celebration, heralding a “victory over separatism.” Narratives proclaimed Kashmir “fully integrated,” as if its previous status had been ambiguous. Media lauded the move as a blow to Pakistan’s “divisive politics,” framing it as a conquest ushering in an era of “freedom,” “development,” and “peace” after decades of terrorism.

Hope for judicial intervention ended on 11 December 2023, when a five-judge Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, upheld the President’s authority to unilaterally revoke Article 370. The verdict declared the abrogation the “culmination” of J&K’s integration with India.

Political Fractures & New Alignments

Kashmiri politicians responded by forming the “Gupkar Alliance,” uniting rival parties under a common minimum program demanding statehood restoration and the reversal of constitutional changes. However, this coalition fractured during subsequent elections. Analysts like Vedika Rekhi termed the abrogation a “watershed moment… sending ripples through the region’s socio-political fabric,” igniting “a tinderbox of conflicting emotions” woven with “both hope and potential pitfalls” (Modern Diplomacy).

The BJP hailed the Alliance’s collapse as a return of “political agency” to the Valley. Meanwhile, Engineer Rashid, an incarcerated leader facing terror-funding charges, secured temporary bail. Launching a vitriolic campaign against the National Conference (NC) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) — denouncing them as “trailers” — he won a parliamentary seat, defeating former CM Omar Abdullah. Rashid later returned to jail, his victory secured.

This reshaped political topography birthed the Justice and Development Front (JDF), largely comprising members of the banned Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) — historically linked to the secessionist movement.

Though the JDF failed to win seats, it later joined Sajad Lone and Hakim Yasin in the “Peoples Alliance for Change” (PAC). Many in Kashmir view the PAC as a New Delhi-backed effort to undermine the NC’s grassroots influence, which remains potent for mobilization. Post-2019 politics is widely perceived as New Delhi’s strategy to control regional parties, breeding public suffocation and hopelessness. As scholars Mohd Amin Mir and Adil Hussain Bhat argued (Taylor & Francis, 2024), the abrogation “widened existing political faultlines,” marginalized mainstream politics, centralized power, and spurred “new political players and a new breed of militancy.”

Security: The Unresolved Equation

While militancy dipped post-2019, it persists. On the abrogation’s fifth anniversary (4 August 2024), Union Minister Dr. Jitendra Singh claimed India was in “the last phase of militancy,” citing record tourist arrivals as proof of peace.

This narrative shattered a year later. A brazen daytime terrorist attack in Pahalgam killed 26 tourists. The perpetrators — alleged by India to be Pakistan-based “non-locals” — vanished. This triggered a four-day military confrontation between India and Pakistan, involving airstrikes, drone attacks, and missile exchanges.The escalation, unprecedented in intensity, required U.S. intervention to de-escalate.

The conflict instantly revived the “Kashmir question” with renewed urgency. Analysts like Praveen Sawhney noted Pakistan gained diplomatic leverage, backed by China, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. India retaliated by suspending the Indus Waters Treaty.

Conclusion: Enduring Questions

Claims of Kashmir’s “full integration” now face deeper scrutiny. The military confrontation exposed the fragility of the “normalcy” narrative built on suppressed protests and tourist numbers. Critics, including former J&K Lt. Governor Satyapal Malik, accuse the BJP of “milking Kashmir” politically — comparing it to the alleged exploitation of the 2019 Pulwama attack for electoral gain.

While militancy may have shifted tactically towards Jammu’s forests, violence continues in Kashmir. The recent India-Pakistan clash underscores how the Kashmir conflict transcends local hartals. Six years after the abrogation — and a decade after the BJP’s “muscular policy” began — the failure to alter Kashmir’s fundamental realities is stark. If two military incursions into Pakistan (2016, 2019) could not resolve the conflict, Kashmiris increasingly question New Delhi’s intentions. The cycle of violence, political manipulation, and geopolitical fragility persists, leaving the people of J&K caught in an unresolved stalemate.