The narrative that terrorism in Indian Illegally Occupied Kashmir (IIOK) is nearing an end after the abrogation of Article 370, as claimed in Shiv Sahai’s article, “What Awaits J&K in Terms of Terrorism and How to Prepare for It?” published in Operation Sindoor & India’s New Doctrine of Deterrence (Strategic Lessons from the 2025 India-Pakistan Crisis), needs a critical examination. However, the claim presents a misleadingly linear and state-centric interpretation of a multifaceted conflict. While reduced militant activity and infrastructure expansion are often showcased as signs of stability, these metrics fail to capture the emotional, political, and civic alienation that persists in the region. This rebuttal contests the false narrative that actions such as the abrogation of Article 370, increased militarization, and economic projects have resolved the Kashmir issue. Instead, it recenters attention on the silenced voices, democratic backsliding, and unresolved grievances that continue to shape the current reality.
The perception of peace in the IIOK after the 2019’s abrogation of article 370, is largely manufactured through repression rather than reconciliation. Under the unlawful Public Safety Act (PSA), thousands of individuals, including minors, political leaders, and civil society members have been detained. . In addition, a 213-day internet blackout and 550 days of partial/full shutdown was also implemented in Kashmir, making it the longest internet restriction, paralyzing education, media, healthcare, and commerce.
Furthermore, the visibly reduced public protests are less a reflection of changed sentiment but because the cost of speaking out has become too high. In 2019, India moved almost 50,000 military and paramilitary personnel to the occupied region, an addition to the 700,000 already stationed there. Since then, the militarization in Kashmir has increased in a gradual manner and continues to be the most densely militarized zone on earth. To equate the absence of visible unrest with the presence of peace is a dangerous misreading of the ground reality. True peace involves justice, dignity, guarantee of fundamental rights and participation not the suppression of voices through surveillance and fear.
India is attributing Kashmir’s unrest solely to external interference and affiliating it unfoundedly with the Pakistan and ignoring its critical domestic factors. They are avoiding the root cause of the insurgency which stems from the illegal occupation of valley using force and the 1987 state elections which were widely perceived those elections as rigged, delegitimized democratic processes and that betrayal radicalized a generation, including Yusuf Shah (later Syed Salahuddin), and catalyzed the armed insurgency. Furthermore, the repeated dismissal of elected leaders like Sheikh Abdullah (1953) and Farooq Abdullah (1984), and the imposition of Governor’s Rule, systematically dismantled Kashmir’s faith in Indian democracy. These duplicities intensified a growing belief that Kashmiri agency was expendable. Reducing the conflict to a foreign-sponsored phenomenon ignores these historical wounds and delegitimizes the region’s indigenous political aspirations.
The claim that the abrogation of Article 370 resolved Kashmir’s political dispute is not only misleading but is constitutionally and ethically flawed. Article 370 was not a special privilege but a contractual provision of accession that recognized Indian Occupied Kashmir’s unique political identity. Its unilateral revocation, at a time when the state legislature stood dissolved, constituted a grave violation of federal principles and democratic norms. Even staunch pro-India parties like the National Conference and the PDP condemned the move, and their leaders were jailed under preventive detention laws.
After the 2019’s abrogation of Article 370 the Gupkar Alliance was formed, calling for restoration of autonomy, and emphasized that the political dispute is far from over. Public trust was eroded evidently in the constrained political activity, low electoral participation, and continued suppression of civil liberties. What is projected as integration is perceived on the ground as disenfranchisement, political centralization masquerading as national unity.
Claims of rising pro-India sentiment in Kashmir lack credible substantiation. Since 2019, no independent opinion polls, referenda, or open political dialogues have been permitted to assess public opinion. Voter turnout in the Kashmir Valley has remained dismal, with the 2019 BDC elections recording participation as low as 5% in several districts. While DDC elections in 2020 saw marginally better turnout, this was attributed to localized development concerns, not ideological shifts. With journalists detained under UAPA and press freedoms stifled (RSF, CPJ), Kashmir has become an information vacuum. In a heavily shrivelled and censored environment, declarations of public support are not just unreliable but are manipulative and in such conditions, any narrative of loyalty or harmony is less a reflection of reality and more a projection of state ambition.
While talking about economic initiatives, such as improved infrastructure and tourism, are often highlighted as signs of progress but they cannot replace meaningful political dialogue. Development without democracy is cosmetic. The Human Rights Watch Report-2022 pointed out the arbitrary detentions and suppression of peaceful assembly during the development drives. It was also confirmed that the projects are implemented without community consultation, reducing them to tools of control rather than empowerment. True development in conflict zones must be participatory, inclusive, and rights-based, none of which currently characterize the approach in IIOK.
Declaring the Kashmir conflict resolved through military dominance and economic optics ignores the deeper currents of political disillusionment and historical betrayal. Peace is not the mere absence of violence, it is the presence of justice, dignity, and democratic agency. If India wishes to secure lasting peace in the Indian Occupied Kashmir, it must move beyond blame-game of terrorism, repression and rhetoric resolve all the outstanding issues with Pakistan including the core issue of Kashmir. Restoring political autonomy, withdrawing its forces from the valley, enabling civil liberties, engaging in genuine dialogue, and acknowledging the region’s unique identity are not concessions, they are prerequisites for healing. Until these foundational issues are addressed, any reduction in violence remains fragile, and any claim of resolution remains premature.