17-07-2025
Opinion: Politics Of Peace Or Business Of Terror? Rethinking ‘Channels Of Communication' In Kashmir
The people of Kashmir are crafting a new narrative—one that does not need silent whispers but rather bold declarations in the open
In a revealing interview with a business newspaper, National Conference leader and Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullah, made a statement that deserves far more scrutiny than it has received.
Reflecting on the recent terror attack in Pahalgam and the region's evolving security architecture, Abdullah remarked, 'There was a reason why elected governments were able to bring the graph of militancy down. It was because we had channels of communication not available to Raj Bhawan today."
On the surface, this comment appears to underscore the value of democratic outreach. Yet, beneath the surface, it raises troubling questions: What were these channels? With whom were these communications held? And more importantly, what kind of political ecosystem normalised such informal lines of contact with elements bent on destabilising the Indian state?
The core question is simple but disturbing: What were these 'channels of communication" that elected governments like Abdullah's had with militant groups or their sympathisers or ideologues? Who exactly were they communicating with—and to what end?
If these so-called connections involved speaking with terrorist groups, their intermediaries, terror ideologues, organisers of hartal, bandh or stone pelters or families, then what is being portrayed as dialogue was, in effect, appeasement.
The political involvements in Jammu and Kashmir, with the history of godfather deals and appointments made in secret, speak volumes of silence shaped up through silence. During the era of elected government, along with their allies, there was a government job stealthily reserved for the kin of known militants and separatist figures.
The sons of Syed Salahuddin received government employment. During the 2016 unrest, triggered after the killing of Hizbul commander Burhan Wani, Geelani's grandson was allegedly appointed to a public sector job in the middle of street protests. It begs the question: Were these the channels that brought down militancy, or were they part of a cynical ecosystem where peace was bartered at the cost of principle?
The Asiya-Neelofar case from Shopian in 2009 is perhaps one of the most infamous cases known to us and is considered a very sensitive matter. It did not only incite rage among people but rape as well as murder was suspected to be used as a narrative just looking at the condition that things were being spiralled into. Doctors who allegedly faked evidence were never held accountable. That changed only recently, under the current Lieutenant Governor's administration, when those involved were dismissed from service.
What is being presented as strength—having 'channels" to negotiate peace—was, in truth, a strategy of selective blindness and patronage politics. It served the interests of rulers, not the aspirations of the ruled. These so-called dialogues gave space for ideologies that glorified guns, justified stone pelting, and turned Kashmir's youth into pawns on a political chessboard played both in Srinagar and across the border in Rawalpindi.
That model no longer applies today. From 2019 onwards, Jammu and Kashmir is not being managed under Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha's leadership—rather, it is undergoing a transformation. For the first time in many years, governance in this area comes without negotiating with shadows. Peace is not being bought, but established. The administration does not accept silence in exchange for sops; rather, it seeks to dismantle the system that thrives on duplicity. There are no 'benevolent' jobs being bestowed upon militants' progenies or their mercenary supporters. No militant proxies supported 'the State" and received payment for their quiet acquiescence to its existence. There are no private entities who pay militants 'inactivity." Despite these developments, for the first time in decades, there has been relative peace alongside unprecedented investment in the region and a surge of democratic confidence.
Peace in Kashmir today is no longer conditional. It is constitutional. Former hotspots such as Pulwama, Shopian and Kulgam have hoisted the national flag, not out of compulsion but pride. Sports tournaments are being held in fields once dominated by funerals of terrorists. Youth are preparing for civil service exams, seeking scholarships, and venturing into entrepreneurship—not out of fear but hope. This new vocabulary of aspiration did not emerge from any clandestine conversation with radicals. It emerged from the principled refusal to entertain them.
At the very least, it is clear that past elected governments merging identities with militant narratives that they never attempted to refute head-on. By either doing nothing, remaining quiet, or indulging in some form of passive acceptance, they managed to simultaneously stabilize and instigate conflict at the same time. These were the people who ignited the fires and then tried claiming credit after pretending to put out the flames. This approach—governing through conflict while claiming to govern over people—perpetually stalled Jammu and Kashmir's development.
It is in this context that Abdullah's statement becomes not just problematic, but dangerous. To lament the absence of those 'channels" today is to suggest that talking to separatists or terror sympathisers is an essential component of governance in Kashmir. That claim is not only false—it is offensive to the memory of every soldier who laid down his life fighting militancy, every Kashmiri civilian caught in crossfire, and every patriot who stood firm when politics wavered.
Let us be grateful that the current Raj Bhawan does not have access to those channels. Let us be grateful that it does not seek them. For what Kashmir needs is not communication with its tormentors, but commitment to its future—rooted in law, merit, development, and unflinching national unity. It is a future that no longer passes through the drawing rooms of dynasts or the compounds of separatists.
Ultimately, the Abdullahs and Muftis, along with all others from that once tumultuous period, must reflect on both their actions and their legacies. They have not considered what has been rendered muted for decades. The people of Kashmir are crafting a new narrative—one that does not need silent whispers but rather bold declarations in the open.
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
June 24, 2025, 16:00 IST
News opinion Opinion: Politics Of Peace Or Business Of Terror? Rethinking 'Channels Of Communication' In Kashmir
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
