26

Feb

Kashmir Seven Years After Article 370: Integration, Alienation and the Search for Political Trust

image

An interview with Shahid Saleem of the United Peace Alliance
By Dr Salim Khan

New Delhi | Friday | 27 February 2026

Seven years after the abrogation of Article 370, the political future of Jammu and Kashmir continues to provoke debate across India and beyond. For Shahid Saleem, Chairman of the United Peace Alliance, the developments since August 2019 reflect a widening gap between official promises and ground realities. Currently touring major Indian cities—including Hyderabad, Bengaluru, Pune and Mumbai—Saleem contrasts what he describes as a vibrant and assertive civil society elsewhere in India with what he calls a climate of restraint and surveillance in Kashmir.

Article 370 of the Indian Constitution granted special autonomous status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. In August 2019, the Government of India, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, revoked the provision and reorganized the state into two Union Territories—Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The move was presented as a decisive step toward national integration, economic development and the end of militancy.

Saleem questions whether those objectives have been realized. “The promise was peace, prosperity and stability,” he says. “But if normalcy has truly returned, why did it begin with curfews, communication blackouts and mass detentions?”

In the weeks following the decision, prominent political leaders—including figures from the Jammu & Kashmir National Conference and members of the Abdullah family—were placed under detention. For Saleem, the incarceration of mainstream, pro-India politicians contradicted the narrative of liberation. “If integration was the goal, why silence those who had worked within the Indian constitutional framework?” he asks.

Article at a Glance
Seven years after the abrogation of Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir remains politically contested. In an interview, United Peace Alliance Chairman Shahid Saleem argues that the government’s promises of peace, prosperity and integration have not fully materialized.
He points to the initial curfews, communication blackouts and detention of mainstream political leaders as undermining the narrative of normalization. Saleem questions the democratic legitimacy of the move, citing concerns over federalism, delimitation and constrained political space.
He also highlights increased surveillance, media restrictions and a security-centric approach that, in his view, sidelines dialogue. While the government emphasizes development, infrastructure and grassroots democracy, Saleem maintains that lasting peace requires restoration of statehood, political reconciliation and public trust.
The debate over Kashmir’s future, he suggests, remains central to India’s democratic credibility and global standing.

The abrogation of Article 370 was challenged in the Supreme Court of India, which ultimately upheld the government’s decision. Yet critics maintain that the move—carried out when the state assembly was not in session—raised fundamental questions about federalism and democratic consent.

Saleem argues that subsequent political processes have deepened skepticism. The delimitation exercise, intended to redraw electoral boundaries, has been contentious. He contends that the restructuring altered political representation in ways that have yet to inspire public confidence. Although elections were held after the reorganization, he describes them as carrying the weight of a “de facto referendum” on the post-370 order.

Observers remain divided on the interpretation of voter turnout and electoral outcomes. While some see participation as evidence of democratic engagement, others interpret it as limited choice within a constrained political environment. For Saleem, the results suggest that many Kashmiris remain unconvinced by the manner in which constitutional change was implemented.

A recurring theme in Saleem’s assessment is what he characterizes as the expansion of surveillance and administrative oversight. He claims that journalists, civil society groups and even mosque committees operate under heightened scrutiny.

“Kashmir has always been heavily securitized,” he says, “but there was once space for debate and reporting. Today, even routine coverage of official directives can invite questioning.”

International human rights organizations have periodically expressed concern over media freedoms in the region. The Indian government, however, maintains that security precautions are essential in a territory historically affected by insurgency and cross-border terrorism. Officials argue that preventing radicalization and ensuring public safety sometimes necessitate firm measures.

The security situation in Jammu and Kashmir remains complex. While large-scale unrest has declined compared to earlier decades, sporadic militant attacks continue to occur. Saleem references incidents such as the Pahalgam attack as reminders of the fragility of peace. Though unequivocal in condemning violence against civilians, he questions whether security-centric strategies alone can deliver lasting stability.

He also mentions operations like “Operation Sindoor,” describing them as examples of how military escalation can overshadow political dialogue. Although interpretations of such operations vary widely, Saleem believes that sustained peace requires more than tactical victories.

Adding to the region’s sensitivity are ongoing border tensions between India and China in Ladakh since 2020. These developments have reinforced the perception that Kashmir is increasingly viewed through a strategic and military lens. “You cannot solve a political problem solely through force,” Saleem argues. “Security may control symptoms, but reconciliation addresses causes.”

India, for its part, asserts that its security posture is defensive and aimed at protecting territorial integrity while combating terrorism. Officials emphasize that development initiatives, infrastructure projects and grassroots democracy through panchayat elections reflect a long-term commitment to stability.

Saleem also situates Kashmir within a broader geopolitical context. India has traditionally framed the issue as an internal matter complicated by cross-border terrorism. However, he observes that global diplomatic landscapes are evolving. Shifting alignments among major powers—the United States, China, Russia and Gulf nations—have introduced new complexities to South Asian politics.

“Diplomacy today is multipolar,” he notes. “Countries balance interests pragmatically. Narratives are contested, and regional crises can quickly gain international visibility.”

While India continues to cultivate strong strategic partnerships worldwide, episodes of unrest or cross-border tension inevitably attract external scrutiny. Saleem suggests that how India manages Kashmir will influence not only domestic cohesion but also international perception as the country seeks a larger global role.

Despite his criticism, Saleem underscores the resilience of Kashmiri society. Decades of insurgency, shutdowns, counterinsurgency operations and economic disruption have shaped a population accustomed to uncertainty. Yet, he insists, the core political question remains unresolved.

Open mass protests have declined compared to earlier years—a trend some interpret as normalization. Saleem attributes the decline partly to fatigue and caution. “Silence does not automatically mean consent,” he says. “Peace must be built on dignity and participation, not just the absence of protest.”

The meaning of electoral participation, too, remains contested. For some, voting reflects pragmatic engagement with available institutions. For others, it coexists with deeper political aspirations that have yet to find expression.

Seven years after the constitutional transformation of Jammu and Kashmir, the region stands at a critical juncture. The central government emphasizes development indicators—new roads, investment proposals, tourism growth and decentralized governance. Critics, including Saleem, argue that the restoration of full statehood and a meaningful political dialogue are essential for durable reconciliation.

The debate over Kashmir’s future touches on constitutional law, federalism, national security, minority rights and geopolitics. It is not merely a regional issue but a test of India’s democratic resilience and institutional adaptability.

For Shahid Saleem, the path forward lies in dialogue rather than dominance. “Force can impose order,” he says, “but only justice can build peace.” Whether that vision gains momentum will depend on political will in New Delhi and Srinagar—and on the evolving aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir themselves.

As India navigates its rise on the global stage, the manner in which it addresses the complexities of Kashmir will remain central to both its domestic narrative and international standing.

**************

  • Share:

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..

Contact Us

Contact Info

  • 70, Gyan Khand- 4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh.
  • +91-9810533682
  • info@mediamap.co.in
  • Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed