Behind the Veil of Kashmir’s Politics: Unraveling DGP Swain’s Eye-Opening Revelations

In the political landscape of Kashmir, parties have historically crossed ethical boundaries to retain power. The Pakistani narrative has long dominated the mindset of the Kashmiri people, imported by separatists. However, Kashmiri political figures, driven by a hunger for power, have managed to lure common voters by sympathizing with separatists. On one side, these politicians aligned with nationalism, while on the other, they courted voters for political gains through emotive politics.

These politicians, mainly from Kashmir, have consistently shown a soft corner for separatists and anti-nationals, supporting them in various ways. Our politicians have never been tough on those behind terrorism and turmoil. Even today, despite the abrogation of special status, these political figures advocate for talks with Pakistan.

The recent statement by DGP RR Swain has fueled debates across Kashmir. Swain stated, “Pakistan successfully infiltrated all important aspects of our civil society, thanks to the regional, so-called mainstream politics in the Valley. There is ample evidence to show that many had mastered the art of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds, which left both the common man and the security men bewildered, frightened, and confused. Visiting homes of killed terrorists and expressing sympathy in public became the norm. While the elimination of new recruits in terrorism was tacitly encouraged, those who facilitated the recruitment and arranged finances were never investigated.”

Referring to the accidental drowning of two girls in 2014, Swain added, “The incident was hijacked by the terrorist narrative, holding the Valley at ransom with hartals, arson, and rioting for many weeks. A very detailed investigation by the CBI, verified by AIIMS forensics, proved it was an outright falsehood. Things had come to such a pass that the so-called mainstream political parties had started cultivating leaders of terror networks and sometimes directly to further their electoral prospects.”

When the truth was revealed by the DGP, local political leaders reacted with panic, exposing their true faces. Let us understand the chronology of how, directly and indirectly, local politicians have exploited the people of Jammu and Kashmir for political gains, putting thousands of Kashmiris at stake.

Alienation

The political figures in Jammu and Kashmir exploited Article 370 to foster a sense of exceptionalism among the people. They propagated the notion that Kashmiris held a unique position in India, a special status that granted them unparalleled autonomy. This narrative made the people believe that they had the exclusive right to determine their destiny, choose their affiliations, and decide what was right and legal. This sense of exclusivity was a strategic move by the politicians to establish a divide between Kashmir and the rest of India.

Mirroring the British colonial divide-and-rule policy, these leaders sowed divisions among the people based on religion, ideology, topography, and identity. This strategy not only deepened the existing fractures within the society but also created new ones, ensuring that the political landscape remained fragmented and thus easier to control. The alienation that ensued was not just a social or cultural divide but a deep-seated psychological separation from the Indian mainstream.

The exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in the late 1980s and early 1990s further exacerbated this alienation. The Pandits, who had been integral to the social and cultural fabric of Kashmir, were forced to flee due to escalating violence and threats from militant groups. This mass exodus created a homogenized demographic, which was more susceptible to radicalization and bigotry. The absence of the Pandits, who could have been a moderating influence, allowed the radical elements to gain a stronger foothold.

The political leaders capitalized on this situation to solidify their power. By fostering a sense of victimhood and exceptionalism, they manipulated the populace into believing that their grievances could only be addressed through separation from India. This narrative served their political interests by ensuring a loyal voter base that felt perpetually alienated and aggrieved.

In essence, the alienation strategy was a calculated move to create a permanent rift between Kashmir and the rest of India. It allowed the political elite to maintain control by perpetuating a sense of otherness and grievance, ensuring that the cycle of conflict and division continued unabated. This alienation has had long-lasting impacts, making it one of the most significant hurdles in achieving lasting peace and integration in the region.

Support for Separatists

In Jammu and Kashmir, political leaders have long maintained a troublingly tolerant stance towards separatist leaders, even as these separatists openly labeled them as collaborators and traitors. This tacit support for separatists is a stark example of how political leaders have prioritized their own survival and electoral gains over the broader interests of the state and its people.

Despite the frequent and harsh criticisms from separatists, mainstream politicians have avoided direct confrontation or criticism of these elements. Instead, they have often engaged in a precarious balancing act, aligning themselves with separatist demands or remaining silent on issues where they should have taken a firm stand. This approach not only undermined the integrity of their positions but also contributed to the perpetuation of instability in the region.

One of the most glaring examples of this support can be seen in the preferential treatment given to individuals associated with separatist leaders. During the turmoil of 2016, when Kashmir was rife with unrest and ordinary citizens were suffering, special posts were created for the relatives of separatist figures. For instance, Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s grandson was appointed to a prestigious position at the Sher-i-Kashmir International Conference Centre (SKICC), with a special role crafted to accommodate him. This act of favoritism was not only a blatant display of political patronage but also an emblem of how political leaders were willing to compromise on merit and fairness for political expediency.

The creation of such posts during a period of crisis demonstrated the extent to which political figures were prepared to align with separatist interests to secure their own positions. By facilitating backdoor entries into government departments for individuals connected with their political parties or separatist leaders, these politicians not only rewarded loyalty to separatist causes but also further entrenched the division and conflict within the state.

Sympathy for Pakistan

Political leaders in Jammu and Kashmir have consistently demonstrated a troubling alignment with separatist narratives, which have, in turn, fostered a pervasive sympathy for Pakistan among the populace. This alignment has significantly influenced the political discourse in the region and has had a profound impact on the public’s perception of the conflict and its key players.

Throughout the years, these leaders have often yielded to the separatist narrative, which frames the conflict in terms of resistance against the Indian state and  portrays Pakistan as a sympathetic ally. This has created a narrative where the insurgents and terrorists fighting against the Indian government are glamorized as freedom fighters and heroes. By endorsing such a perspective, political leaders have not only perpetuated a skewed understanding of the conflict but also fostered a sense of camaraderie with Pakistan, which is seen as a supporter of the separatist cause.

The political establishment’s inclination towards Pakistan has manifested in various ways. For instance, terrorists who have been involved in violent activities against the state have been referred to as martyrs or heroes. This glorification of violence and rebellion has undermined efforts to address the root causes of terrorism and extremism in the region. Furthermore, individuals who have surrendered or have been captured have often been given government jobs and allowances, creating an impression that their actions against the state are somehow rewarded.

This policy of rewarding violence and aligning with Pakistan’s narrative has had several repercussions. It has created a distorted image of heroism and resistance among the common people, particularly the youth, who are often lured into militancy by these glorified portrayals. Additionally, the provision of jobs and financial benefits to those associated with terrorism has further eroded public trust in the government and its institutions.

The political leaders’ actions have not only exacerbated the conflict but have also hindered efforts to forge a cohesive and unified approach to resolving the issues in Jammu and Kashmir. By prioritizing their political survival and aligning with separatist and Pakistani interests, these leaders have contributed to the entrenchment of divisions and have undermined the possibility of achieving lasting peace and stability in the region.

Romanticizing Terrorism

In Jammu and Kashmir, a disturbing trend has emerged where politicians have romanticized terrorism, portraying terrorists as freedom fighters rather than addressing them as threats to peace and security. This portrayal has had a profound impact on public perception and has exacerbated the conflict in the region.

One of the most glaring examples of this romanticization occurred in 2016 following the killing of Burhan Wani, a prominent militant commander. Former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah made a highly controversial statement on social media, asserting, “Mark my words—Burhan’s ability to recruit into militancy from the grave will far outstrip anything he could have done on social media.” This statement not only glorified Wani’s role as a militant but also suggested that his influence and ability to incite violence would persist even after his death. By framing Wani in such a manner, Abdullah contributed to the martyrdom narrative that many militants in Kashmir are elevated to, which in turn fosters further recruitment and radicalization.

Similarly, Mehbooba Mufti’s actions also exemplify the troubling support for terrorism by some political leaders. Her visits to the homes of terrorists, where she extended condolences and expressed solidarity with their families, further illustrated this problematic stance. These visits were not only symbolic gestures of support but also served to normalize and legitimize the actions of those engaged in terrorism. Such acts create an environment where the line between political dissent and violent extremism becomes blurred, making it easier for radical ideologies to take root.

This romanticizing of terrorism undermines efforts to counter radicalization and violence. By elevating militants to the status of heroes and framing their actions as a form of resistance, these political leaders contribute to a narrative that perpetuates conflict rather than working towards reconciliation and peace. It also sends a dangerous message to the youth, who might view terrorism as a legitimate or glorified path to achieving political aims.

Normalization of Anti-Constitutionalism in Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu and Kashmir has long been a region where political mandates are sought through actions that often contradict the very constitution that governs the country. This phenomenon has been a defining characteristic of the political landscape in the region since India gained independence in 1947. Rather than upholding constitutional values, political parties in Jammu and Kashmir have frequently sought to manipulate and exploit constitutional provisions to further their own agendas, creating a disturbing normalization of anti-constitutionalism.

Since 1947, political parties in Jammu and Kashmir have repeatedly challenged and sought to undermine the Indian constitution, using it as a tool to justify their actions rather than to adhere to its principles. This has resulted in a political environment where anti-constitutional rhetoric and policies have become commonplace. Surprisingly, the Election Commission of India has not taken significant action against these practices, allowing the trend to become entrenched in the political fabric of the region. As a result, political parties now openly compete with one another in promoting anti-constitutional positions, seeking electoral mandates based on their opposition to the Indian constitution rather than their governance achievements.

This disturbing trend has had several negative consequences. It has weakened the relationship between New Delhi and the people of Kashmir, as the focus has shifted from assessing the performance of elected officials to engaging in constitutional brinkmanship. The ruling elites in Kashmir often take pride in their anti-Indian stance, prioritizing their opposition to central policies over tangible governance improvements. This approach has diverted attention from the critical issues of development, accountability, and public welfare, leading to a political culture where defiance of the constitution is not only tolerated but rewarded.

The normalization of anti-constitutionalism undermines the integrity of democratic processes and erodes trust in institutions. For the people of Jammu and Kashmir, this has created a political environment where the focus is more on challenging constitutional norms than on delivering effective governance and fostering unity.