While some world leaders have condemned the attack on tourists in Pahalgam, Kashmir, the incident has left the local population in a profound state of shock and disbelief. This has sparked a wave of empathy and concern across India. Many believed that the three-decade-long period of bloodshed was behind them, a period that had claimed nearly one lakh Kashmiri youth, devastated thousands of families, and turned every street into a graveyard. However, the recent attack in the tourist resort has sent shockwaves through the community, as people brace for crackdowns, searches, arrests and escalations along the border as a likely consequence.

It is a strange coincidence that tourists were targeted just as the US Vice President set foot in India

Perhaps people have forgotten the Chhattisinghpura attack in 2000, which occurred precisely when US President Bill Clinton arrived in India. He was compelled to condemn the attack as soon as he deliberated. It is a strange coincidence that tourists were targeted just as the US Vice President set foot in India. ‘Whosoever is the perpetrator has a strong motive either to involve the US in this conflict or to label it as Islamic terrorism,’ states Anjum Afsarin, a sociopolitical scientist from Telangana.

‘those responsible for these attacks cannot be considered well-wishers of the Kashmiri nation, which has been left trampled, disempowered and dispossessed’

Whether it is the Chhattisinghpura attack or the Pahalgam attack, such incidents have severely undermined the ongoing political rights movement in the region. According to social activist Raju Moghul, ‘those responsible for these attacks cannot be considered well-wishers of the Kashmiri nation, which has been left trampled, disempowered and dispossessed’.

Who are these individuals who insist on shrouding the legitimate political rights movement in the guise of Islamic terrorism? Who are these people who show no mercy to a half-dead nation struggling through a violent era, preventing it from taking even a few breaths? Who is adamant about maligning Kashmiri hospitality and humanity? There are many questions people are whispering to each other.

‘Do these attackers not realise that their actions undermine the cause they claim to champion? By resorting to violence, they not only alienate public support but also tarnish the image of the political rights movement. Is this the legacy they wish to leave behind? Asks a student who lost his parents to violent turmoil in the early 90s.

Although the UN Charter does not categorise the use of weapons for self-defence as terrorism, the principle of armed conflict is to kill or be killed. 

When political movements are fought with guns, they transform from movements into acts of terrorism. Although the UN Charter does not categorise the use of weapons for self-defence as terrorism, the principle of armed conflict is to kill or be killed. Most political movements have never succeeded through the use of firearms. More than sixty political movements are active currently, but most of them changed their course after the September 11 attacks on the US. That strategy of changing them to non-violent movements earned them the support of different communities.

At the outset of his freedom movement, Nelson Mandela recognised that he could not achieve his goals through violence. It would only create a cycle of death for his people

At the outset of his freedom movement, Nelson Mandela recognised that he could not achieve his goals through violence. It would only create a cycle of death for his people. He abandoned the gun shortly after acquiring it; his long and arduous commitment to peaceful resistance ultimately realised everything he had envisioned.

A peaceful movement aimed at achieving constitutional and political rights existed in Jammu and Kashmir until the 1990s. However, when it transformed into an armed struggle, it marked the beginning of a long history of destruction, resulting in significant loss of lives and livelihoods. It is imperative to revive the spirit of that peaceful movement and work towards a resolution that avoids bloodshed. Democracy has a space for dissent, no matter how long it takes to achieve the goal.

Has animosity between Hindus and Muslims escalated to the point where religion has become a motive for murder?

During numerous attacks in the past, soldiers, civilians, and individuals from various communities, including Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs, have lost their lives. Notably, this was the first instance where, according to media reports, gunmen inquired about the victims’ religion before targeting tourists. Has animosity between Hindus and Muslims escalated to the point where religion has become a motive for murder? How has this come to such a level where people belonging to different religions are massacred?

There are such instances across various states in India, too, where Hindu extremists have questioned their victims’ religion before committing acts of violence. This mindset has emerged in recent years, tainting our humanity and hospitality.

On one hand, religion is creating divisions, while on the other, public trust is eroded with every attack.

The independent media is consistently barred from publishing investigative reports on these incidents, and international human rights organisations are denied access to investigate the region. Many times, the efforts of international non-governmental organisations to reach the sites of these incidents were thwarted. What we are witnessing at the moment is a media narrative or script being provided repeatedly, establishing a singular public opinion for weeks on end.

If the media seeks to demonstrate its patriotism by advocating for an attack on Pakistan as the sole solution, why do policymakers squander time and resources on peace then?

Why does the sensationalist media, at the behest of extremists, hold the entire Kashmiri population accountable for these attacks instead of addressing failures in intelligence, enhancing security measures, or fostering trust within the community? If the media seeks to demonstrate its patriotism by advocating for an attack on Pakistan as the sole solution, why do policymakers squander time and resources on peace then? Furthermore, the government seems to prioritise appeasing these narratives.

Why are those in power, who claim to have normalised the situation in the region, not held accountable?

Following the abolition of internal autonomy, a narrative emerged at both global and national levels suggesting that the gunmen in the region had been eliminated, the Line of Control was secured, and those with a desire for freedom had integrated into the mainstream, leaving their past behind. However, whenever an attack occurs in Pahalgam, the immediate response is to place blame on Kashmiris or Pakistan, without addressing the critical question of how such a significant security breach could happen again. Why are those in power, who claim to have normalised the situation in the region, not held accountable? Why are security failures not scrutinised, instead of inciting fanaticism?

The international community was assured that following the abrogation of Article 370, agitation, terrorism, and violence had ceased in Kashmir, and that development and progress were underway. Yet, the recent attack has shattered that illusion, resulting in the tragic loss of 28 innocent tourists. The responsibility needs to be directed towards the politicians who, through their incessant Hindu-Muslim rhetoric, are undermining the nation, rather than towards ordinary citizens.

Recently, during a speech to Pakistanis abroad in Islamabad, Pakistani Army Chief General Asim Munir referenced the two-nation theory, Hindu-Muslim dynamics, and Kashmir, which sparked considerable discussion in the Indian media and was perceived as a potential incitement against Hindus. Following the Pahalgam attack, reports indicated that the assailants inquired about the tourists’ religion before opening fire, linking this to the Army Chief’s remarks. Where lies the difference in approach or hate in both countries?

According to a pro-freedom activist, ‘many Kashmiris dismissed General Munir’s comments as absurd and unnecessary, suggesting that he was resorting to fanaticism to maintain his position. If even those within his own ranks do not support him, why should Kashmiris heed his call to arms? The sentiment is clear: times have changed.’

From General Munir’s statement to Modi’s return from Saudi Arabia, significant developments are unfolding behind the scenes. Many think tanks are making alarming predictions about these events, suggesting that they could alter the subcontinent’s geography and jeopardise the reputation, prestige, and history of the Kashmiri nation. This journey began many decades ago.

As recent statements indicate, if a conflict arises between the two countries, the repercussions will inevitably impact scarred Kashmir

A place as beautiful as Kashmir now finds itself at a critical juncture, where its existence, identity, and livelihood feel precariously threatened. As recent statements indicate, if a conflict arises between the two countries, the repercussions will inevitably impact scarred Kashmir.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.