Kashmir, a ground historically disputed between India and Pakistan remains a thorn in the side of South Asian politics. Nevertheless, the recent pledge by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to reverse his government’s controversial 2019 decision to remove Jammu and Kashmir from its statehood underscores enduring predicaments in rule-making over who belongs or governs what. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (B.J.P.) has said returning statehood is a commitment to the people of Kashmir. According to Al Jazeera, this is a deeply political move that will reinforce the anti-India sentiment in Indian-administered Kashmir.

There has been a limited international reaction with the U.S. and many other global players often side-stepping the Kashmir issue for flourishing ties with India. The ineffectiveness of responding to violent crises echoes a wider trend: the preference for geopolitics over humanitarianism when it comes to tackling several serious human rights abuses. In the past, scrapping of Article 370 — which gave partial autonomy to J&K — has deepened alienation and bred further discontent among the Kashmiri public. In a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, it was stated that this one-sided measure taken by the B.J.P. has served to un-isolate the Kashmiri voices in political conversation, fortifying their cycle of dis-empowerment and frustration.

According to P.B.S. News, the B.J.P.’s explanation of statehood as a playground to facilitate Indians’ closeness plus assimilation into populist India ignores so many wealthy Kashmiri cultural examples of righteousness. The Human Rights Watch said the continuing unrest reflected a deeper crisis around alienation among Kashmiris that included concern over the loss of rights. Politicians seek to increase local anger and resentment.

However, the fact is that Kashmir’s marginalization results not just from internal Indian politics. The area has a history of being one point in the wider geopolitical rivalry between India and Pakistan. The two countries have fought more than half a dozen wars over the territory of Kashmir, which both claim in full but control in part. The two first went to war with one another in 1947, just after both territories were granted independence; more conflicts followed — including the1965 conflict and the 1999 Kargil War– dividing rather than uniting a region characterized by mixed populations of Hindus and Muslims. This series of wars ushered in a period of mutual allegations over human rights abuses flying back and forth. In the process, Kashmiris have been sandwiched between two nuclear states.

The B.J.P.’s reaction to the Kashmir issue has been confused and largely ineffective in dealing with its root cause of unrest. In this context, Al Jazeera states that Modi’s assurance of the resumption of statehood seems a hollow promise. Perhaps even worse was the loss of faith that had been established in Kashmir with regards to self-determination for decades, only to get snatched from them again by bringing a puppet government; disillusionment resulting not just from political influence but also because internal controls converted elected representatives into no more than puppets controlled by central Indian hands.

The reason for this continual issue is that the Indian Government has never been willing to engage in an honest dialogue with the Kashmir people. As noted by A.P. News when peace talks started in 2019, between Modi and then-Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan, hopes were raised that relations would improve. However, despite these talks, there has been little on-the-ground movement in terms of building down tensions or tackling political issues within Kashmir.

The fraught dynamics of this conflict are supplemented by the B.J.P.’s narratives on Article 370 being a hurdle to development, and that its abrogation was crucial for economic progress even though there is already sufficient evidence that these policies have indeed exacerbated grievances further. Critics believe this only further alienates Kashmiris and leads to more anti-India sentiment. Not communicating with local political leaders and other stakeholders has convinced the Kashmiris that New Delhi treats them as something to be controlled, rather than respecting their rights.

What is more, the B.J.P. complacently ignores how Kashmir’s autonomy is presented in very different social and political configurations — after all these years of conflict. The Kashmir Valley is made up of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs who had lived side-by-side for centuries but whose cultural identities have been stretched to breaking under the weight of endless violence. This lack of attention results in a process whereby the community feels marginalized, it dis-empowers and silences them. The distinct identity and aspirations of Kashmiris only continue to make things worse and create a barrier to reaching any resolution that could have been sought toward peace.

Dealing with the marginalization of Kashmir in a meaningful way requires an integrated strategy that includes dialogue, engagement, and recognizing primarily the Indigenous nature of Kashmir people’s identity. The government of India needs to start an inclusive dialogue, involving all stakeholders like the local political leaders, civil society organizations, and community representatives. This will offer a deeper insight into the hurdles in front of those inhabiting Kashmiris and lay out an adaptable solution.

Restoration of Article 370 and real empowerment of local governance is necessary. Indian Kashmir parties — including the National Conference (N.C.) and People’s Democratic Party (P.D.P.), both pro-India groups historically elected in the Jammu and Kashmir region accused Modi of having denied democracy to residents, while they promised Article 370 restoration along with statehood. Omar Abdullah of the N.C. Party and Mehbooba Mufti of the P.D.P., two recently-elected chief ministers of Jammu and Kashmir originally boycotted local elections due to a loss of powers which rendered municipalities impotent under heavy New Delhi thumb.

After the meeting in Delhi, Mehbooba Mufti demanded restoration of Kashmir’s special status saying that “the people of Jammu and Kashmir are not going to lose hope or give up” the resistance, alluding to a larger rebellion against perceived attempts by B.J.P. to erode what many in Kashmir see as its distinctive identity and autonomy.

Decentralization collapses the bureaucratic chain of decision-making to empower local leaders with some level of ownership and trust in managing their communities. Kashmiris have very little political agency under the current political structure of the Indian government which is headed by Lieutenant Governor. Hence, any pledge for statehood shall also mean minimal interference from the central government and must include a decentralization plan that transfers real power to local bodies.

Besides, the government should proactively seek economic development and investment in order to generate employment for the local population while not just enjoying national benefits from its projects but being sensitive towards the people of Kashmir. Efforts to upgrade infrastructure, education, and healthcare are among some of the measures that might help mitigate socioeconomic divisions at home that have spawned unrest. This could lower exposure to economic shocks, create jobs, and build a stronger economy that is more resilient against external shock — contributing to peace.

Similarly, the protection of cultural heritage and particular identity associated with Kashmiris is also important. This could be done through policies that promote local traditions, languages, and customs. Acknowledging and honouring the cultural background of Kashmir can help to foster a sense of identity in its people, which is crucial for establishing peaceful coexistence. Similarly, other initiatives that promote cultural exchange and educational programs related to the various histories of Kashmir can also help build mutual understanding and reconciliation.

Finally, the role of international and regional organizations shouldn’t be underestimated.  It can also call for international dialogue with the participation of Pakistan and other interested stakeholders to ensure a more comprehensive approach in addressing broader geopolitical dimensions concerning Jammu & Kashmir. Establishing communication and Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs) can help create regular ties, lower tensions and build confidence. In such a case, neutral international mediators could bring a breath of fresh air to the talks and force both sides to negotiate in good faith and think less about short-term gains and more on long-term solutions.

Ultimately, addressing the Kashmir issue requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond political reforms. Genuine engagement with Kashmir’s local leaders, commitment to their aspirations, and efforts to rebuild trust are critical steps toward peace. By empowering local governance, fostering economic development, and valuing Kashmir’s cultural identity, the Indian government can create a more inclusive and stable future.