A challenge, an opportunity

Because of their geographical and cultural differences, the Kashmiris have maintained separate identities despite their incorporation into the Indian state long ago. The competing political tendencies of democratic liberalism and regressive traditionalism have advocated the retention of differences in administration, customs and the thought process. Special constitutional provisions ensured that a sense of Kashmiri identity is more important to people than their relationship to India. Different interpretations of the Islamic faith have come to contribute significantly to the persistence of Kashmiri resistance to psychological integration with the Indian republic, and then to the inability of their representatives to agree among themselves on how to bring Kashmiris closer to the Indians. Though the traditional "mainstream" Kashmiri politicians have kept the separatist elements at an arm's length, they have failed to normalise Kashmir's complex relationship with the rest of India. To add to New Delhi's woes, the state of Jammu and Kashmir has also suffered from friction between the constituent units and the tension between regionalism and centralism.

Hence, India had to respond to adapting its strategic thinking on the Kashmir issue, if it was serious in resolving the conflict. In the new political and security environment following the sudden abrogation of some sections of Article 370, New Delhi should be prepared not simply to react, but to act. It would be risky to cede the strategic initiative to Pakistan and its non-state violent proxies, who have been using unconventional means to undermine India's territorial and security interests in Kashmir and elsewhere as well as target democratic values of secularism and the rule of law. To retain the strategic initiative, India must systematically reassess its counterinsurgency doctrine and its applicability to Kashmir's prevailing threat environment. As a matter of fact, conventional doctrines of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency face challenges in a situation where a large number of people internalise a sense of victimhood and tend to provide retrospective justification for the violence they indulge in. This is what has been happening in Kashmir for quite some time.

Communities caught up in intractable conflicts tend to develop psychological conditions enabling them to cope with the conflict. The beliefs that sustain these psychological conditions include a strong belief on the fairness of one's cause, an extremely positive self-perception and deep-rooted feelings of victimhood and humiliation. These beliefs, in turn, form an ethos that lead to continuation of the conflict. As part of the ideological conflict with the Indian sate, the Kashmiri society has been engaged in a process of creating historical, social, cultural and, of course, existential reasons to justify its aims.

That is why the actions undertaken by a section of Kashmiri people get attributed to altruistic motives, but almost similar actions taken by the Indian security forces are perceived as diabolical. The Kashmir Valley has also been a place where conspiracy theories thrive. Every event, which does not conform to their ethos, is attributed to the machination of a powerful group of individuals in New Delhi. Conspiracy theories diminish discordant perceptions and complexities to over-simplistic patterns. Besides bringing a welcome order to unpleasant events, they relieve individuals in stress situations from the pressure of reality, since they provide a simple explanation for their suffering. Conspiracy theories enjoy great appeal in times of crisis that characterise contemporary Kashmiri society. Not surprising, the media coverage, academic research and public discourse have adopted a set of terms, ideas and arguments which feed and reinforce this sense of victimhood, thereby creating a certain intellectual or ideological climate inimical to Kashmir's psychological integration with the Indian republic. Whether the decision to revoke Article 370 of the Indian Constitution through a presidential decree will change the manner in which the Kashmiri society visualises its past, present and future is difficult to predict. But this unprecedented move will certainly lead to the construction of new political narratives and ideological terms.  

Terrorism is primarily aimed at compelling the direct and indirect audiences to consider the political meaning of the actions undertaken. Therefore, terrorists have always attracted the lion's share of the intellectual and academic attention, which is hardly surprising. How the continued use of violence and its normalisation desensitise a vast segment of the Kashmiri youth and provides them with the retrospective justification to indulge in further acts of violence have rarely attracted our attention. In fact, the status quo on Kashmir had become as unsustainable for Kashmiris as for the Indian state. It had to change if Kashmir was to emerge as a normal society.

There is no guarantee that the changed constitutional and administrative scenario in Kashmir would either alter the facts on the grounds or bring the conflict to a conclusion, but it undeniably presents a historic opportunity to develop a unique bond between India and Kashmir, unrestrained by a counterproductive sense of entitlement of the last seven decades. New Delhi must ensure that the doctrinal responses India's security forces develop to hybrid threats in Kashmir uphold the principles of liberal democracy. The coming months in Kashmir will be essential to this process, and will determine the effectiveness of India's counterinsurgency operations.

Kaura is Assistant Professor at the Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Rajasthan, and Pant is Professor of International Relations at King's College, London