Fcade of Compliance: Coercion, Affidavits, and the Unraveling Myth of India Occupied Jammu Kashmir’s ‘Integration’**

By: Altaf Hussain Wani

Indian Home Minister Amit Shah’s assertion that “separatism (sentiment for freedom from Indian occupation ) has become history in Jammu & Kashmir” is not just an oversimplification—it is a calculated erasure of the region’s grim realities. As a researcher engaged with India occupied Jammu Kashmir’s political trajectory for over three decades, I contend that such claims are part of a coercive statecraft aimed at manufacturing consent while obscuring New Delhi’s systemic failures to address the roots of the conflict. The resignation of Hurriyat leaders, far from signaling ideological surrender, exposes a campaign of intimidation. Meanwhile, Mr. Shah’s combative rhetoric during his ongoing visit underscores India’s refusal to confront its role in perpetuating alienation in the disputed territory.

Coercion and the Myth of “Voluntary” Compliance

The Indian government’s narrative of “normalcy” in India occupied Jammu Kashmir hinges on staged spectacles. Recent reports of separatist leaders resigning from the Hurriyat Conference—a coalition advocating self-determination—are touted as triumphs. Ground realities, however, reveal a darker truth. Former Hurriyat members, activists, and civilians are coerced into signing affidavits renouncing separatist ideologies. These documents, drafted by authorities and extracted under duress, are paraded as “voluntary declarations” to legitimize the state’s claim that Kashmiris have “moved on.”

Such tactics echo strategies deployed post-2019, when detainees were forced to disavow dissent after Article 370’s abrogation. Today, coercion is institutionalized: individuals are summoned to police stations, threatened with imprisonment, property seizures, or familial harassment unless they comply. The affidavits then serve as propaganda, marketed domestically and internationally as “proof” of integration. This is structural violence, not reconciliation.

Amit Shah’s Visit: Securitization Over Dialogue

Mr. Shah’s visit epitomizes New Delhi’s playbook. His speeches, laden with warnings against “anti-national elements,” prioritize securitization over dialogue. In Srinagar, he vowed to “wipe out terrorism” while ignoring demands for political engagement. His rhetoric—triumphalist and menacing—reflects India’s enduring strategy: conflating dissent with terrorism, dismissing Kashmiri aspirations as “foreign conspiracies,” and reducing a political struggle to a law-and-order issue.

Crucially, his visit coincides with measures tightening control over Kashmiri Muslims. Beyond rhetoric, India is expanding security grids—deploying paramilitary forces, installing AI surveillance, and multiplying checkpoints—that normalize militarization and erode communal autonomy. Simultaneously, the state prioritizes the Hindu-majority Amarnath Yatra, fortifying pilgrimage routes with biometric systems and round-the-clock security, while Kashmiri Muslims endure arbitrary stops and movement restrictions. This duality is stark: the state invests in safeguarding non-local pilgrims while weaponizing “security” to marginalize Kashmiris in their homeland. The message is clear: India occupied Jammu Kashmir’s identity and rights are subordinate to New Delhi’s majoritarian projects.

The Futility of Repression: Resistance Reimagined

India’s repression has yielded diminishing returns. While overt separatist mobilization has declined, resistance persists in subtler forms. Youth alienation, fueled by unemployment and surveillance, has shifted dissent to digital realms—social media campaigns, podcasts, and online journals bypass censorship to globalize the cause. Even sporadic militancy in South Kashmir reflects despair over closed political avenues.

The state’s response? Further criminalization. Journalists face charges under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for reporting protests. Civil society advocates are branded “anti-India” for defending human rights. Schools and universities, once hubs of discourse, are militarized. Yet, such measures only deepen resentment. As one Kashmiri youth remarked anonymously: “They can force us to sign papers, but how do they erase what we feel?”

International Scrutiny and the Illusion of Normalcy

Mr. Shah’s narrative ignores India occupied Jammu Kashmir’s unresolved international status. The region remains a nuclear flashpoint, its disposition pending under UN resolutions. India’s 2019 constitutional overhaul, executed without Kashmiri consent, drew global condemnation. The European Parliament, U.S. Congress, and rights groups have repeatedly highlighted arbitrary detentions and media blackouts. Even allies like the UAE have subtly signaled unease over India’s majoritarian turn.

New Delhi counters with a rebranding campaign, promoting India occupied Jammu Kashmir as a “paradise” for tourists and investors. Yet, glossy brochures cannot camouflage military checkpoints flanking ski slopes or the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which grants soldiers impunity. The world sees through the facade but treads cautiously, prioritizing economic ties over principle.

Conclusion: The Illusion Unravels

Amit Shah’s triumphalism is performative, designed to bolster the BJP’s nationalist credentials. But in India occupied Jammu Kashmir, the silence he celebrates is not peace—it is the exhaustion of a people battered by violence, surveillance, and broken promises. Coerced affidavits, threats, and erasure of agency are temporary fixes to a festering wound.

History shows that unresolved conflicts cannot be suppressed indefinitely. From Ireland to Palestine, repression fuels resistance. Until India acknowledges Kashmiris’ right to self-determination, ends impunity for rights abuses, and replaces militarization with dialogue, its claims of “integration” will remain a dangerous illusion. The spirit of freedom in India occupied Jammu Kashmir cannot be affidavit-ed away. It endures, simmering beneath the surface, waiting.