Opinion | Post-election turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir: Political histories and resurgence of terror

The recent terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir, including the disturbing grenade blast at crowded Sunday market, starkly expose the region’s fragile state of security. This new wave of violence reflects a troubling shift in insurgent tactics, where groups not only employ force but also seek to manipulate public perception and deepen social divides. As Yuval Noah Harari suggests, modern power lies not just in physical control but in shaping narratives and exploiting societal vulnerabilities.

In Kashmir, this strategy has intensified, with militants leveraging every opportunity to disrupt and destabilise the region, exploiting the discontent that lingers post-election. These attacks aren’t just physical threats — they represent an attempt to undermine the very fabric of governance and public trust.

Jammu and Kashmir has always held strategic importance and political sensitivity. The revocation of Article 370 in August 2019 marked a significant shift in the region’s political and governance landscape. Article 370 had granted special autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir, allowing it to have its own constitution and autonomy over internal matters, except in defence, communications, finance, and foreign affairs. Its abrogation integrated Jammu and Kashmir more directly into India, ending its special status and bringing it under the same legal and administrative framework as other Indian states.  

Despite the transformative developments in Kashmir since the abrogation of Article 370, a clear divide persists among leaders who continue to champion its restoration. This relentless push for Article 370’s return overlooks its largely symbolic significance in recent decades, as it had already become an “empty shell” with limited impact on the ground. The focus on Article 370 now seems a shallow political fight, diverting attention from substantive issues such as economic development, security, and social integration that could genuinely improve lives in Kashmir.  

While significant changes have unfolded post-abrogation — One of the primary arguments highlighting this paradox is that elections in Kashmir — particularly following major political shifts, like changes in the region’s autonomy or electoral mandates — often fuel a resurgence in terrorism, undermining the very progress that increased economic investments, infrastructure projects, and improved security conditions aim to establish. Yet, many leaders persist in prioritising symbolic victories, like calls to restore Article 370, over practical solutions to these security challenges, perpetuating a climate of disharmony that stalls real progress for the region.  

Political instability has been used by terror groups to justify and amplify their activities. These groups often frame their attacks as a rejection of electoral processes they consider illegitimate or as a response to increasing Indian administrative control over the region. Multiple studies suggest a spike in terror-related activities around election periods.

Another critical argument involves the role of external actors, particularly Pakistan, in fomenting unrest during and after elections in Kashmir. Various intelligence reports and research papers highlight how terror groups based in Pakistan often intensify their activities in the region during politically sensitive periods, seeing elections as an opportunity to disrupt the peace process. These attacks are also linked to Pakistan’s long-standing geopolitical strategy of using proxy groups to destabilise Kashmir and further its territorial claims.  

Historical patterns of violence in Kashmir show an increase in cross-border infiltration and terror incidents around elections. Scholars like Christine Fair and others have analysed Pakistan’s involvement in radicalising local populations and providing support to terror groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which often claim responsibility for post-election attacks.

Kashmir’s history of insurgency involves protracted conflicts that followed deemed unfair political shifts. According to Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain, “In 1999, 2007-10 and in 2016 we were in even more difficult situations in J&K. The way the media is despairing is morale shattering for the nation. No doubt we have a challenge on our hands but with diligence and industry we will work ourselves to a position of strength. In proxy war situations the adversary gets temporary positions of dominance. The public has to be explained this in a simple and calm way without rhetoric. Best done politically if maturity is adopted.”

This pattern indicates that the security climate in the region can be greatly impacted by political developments. Comparably, elections in the past that were held in unsteady political climates have frequently failed to generate trustworthy leadership, leading to uneven government.

The socio-political terrain of Kashmir is as complex as a spider web. Every strand reflects a distinct facet of the politics, culture, and history of the area. Any disruption in one area of the network could have a large-scale effect. The fragility of this balance was demonstrated by the recent elections.

Deviations from a well-laid strategy, especially in sensitive areas like Jammu and Kashmir, can cause major disruptions. This behaviour can be explained by the Chaos and Complexity Theory, which maintains that even slight changes to the initial conditions can produce dramatically diverse outcomes. And according to the complexity theory, even modest changes can have profound and unexpected consequences in systems with a large number of interrelated components. This is especially important in areas like J&K because of the intricate relationships between political, social, and historical elements. The chaos theory emphasises the unpredictable nature of the region’s reaction to political decisions by further explaining how small changes in initial conditions can result in radically different results.

Additionally, terror organisations have tried to push a narrative that extremism in Kashmir flourished as justifiable complaints of the people went unanswered. They created this impression and used the imagery to radicalise and recruit young people. The situation that has emerged in Jammu and Kashmir after the elections is a sobering reminder of the inherent complexity of the region.  

The post-election terror attacks in Kashmir represent a critical juncture where political power, insurgency, and external influence collide. Drawing from Yuval Noah Harari’s concept of power shifts, these attacks illustrate a broader paradigm shift in how power is wielded and challenged in such zones. In Kashmir, terror groups no longer rely solely on military force but increasingly engage in shaping ideological narratives, manipulating political unrest, and radicalising local populations to challenge state authority.

This paradigm shift complicates the Indian state’s efforts to stabilise the region through elections and counterinsurgency operations. Given this shifting landscape, India’s response must evolve beyond traditional counterinsurgency, addressing deep-rooted grievances, engaging with local communities, and reinforcing security measures with a people-centred approach are essential to restore stability and counter these new forms of insurgent influence. The path to peace in Kashmir will depend on adapting to these complex dynamics and reinforcing a sense of safety and solidarity among its citizens.

(Tehmeena Rizvi is a Junior Research Consultant at Indian Council of Social Science research. Her areas of work include gender intersectionality, conflict and development. Views expressed by the writer are her own and they don’t represent the editorial position of Firstpost.)