5th August 2019 marked a watershed moment in the contemporary political and resistance history of Kashmir. The unilateral actions by India shattered the pre-existing paradigm, shifting the trajectory of the region from a contested occupation to outright annexation, and now toward an alarming phase of settler colonization is in play. The post-2019 landscape must be understood through three lenses: the status quo, the anti-status quo, and the status quo ante—each representing a distinct ideological and strategic position. The status quo is staunchly defended by India, rooted in its military occupation and concocted through manufactured legal instruments. For India, maintaining the current grip over Jammu & Kashmir is not merely a territorial concern but the cornerstone of its Ultra nationalist Moditva narrative. Through its 15th, 14th, and 13th Corps deployed in the region, India maintains a suppressive military hold that ensures this status quo is preserved at all costs. On the other side of the spectrum lies the anti-status quo camp—represented not only by the people of Kashmir, but also by Pakistan, and UN resolutions. These actors reject India’s unilateral actions and advocate for the Kashmiri people’s internationally recognized right to self-determination. The UN resolutions on Kashmir are not mere diplomatic relics; they are the legal foundation that differentiate Kashmir from all other disputes in the region. They affirm that the conflict must be resolved—not managed—through the will of the people, not the barrel of the gun. India’s focus, however, has always been conflict management, not resolution. It seeks to contain, divert, and dilute the resistance through calculated political, military, and demographic maneuvers. The 5th August move aimed to consolidate India’s grip by altering its legal, political, and demographic status. The status quo ante, the original position prior to the Indian occupation and its constitutional manipulations, is what the people of Kashmir have lost is not alternative to right to self determination. It reflects the desire to return to a state of justice, dignity, and international legality—restoring the terms under which Kashmir was brought before the UN in 1948, when Nehru himself committed to a plebiscite before the world.
From 27 October 1947 to 5 August 2019, India maintained a tactical status quo through internal guarantees like Article 370 and 35-A—not out of benevolence, but as a buffer to manage Kashmiri resistance. After revoking these provisions, India transitioned the conflict from occupation to annexation, and now from annexation to settler-colonialism. This is not just political strategy—it is demographic engineering.The current phase reflects a textbook case of settler colonialism, wherein India aims to change the identity, culture, and population composition of Kashmir. This is not simply an internal matter; it is a violation of international law and a direct threat to the survival of an entire people. Kashmiri Muslims, once recognized by New Delhi as political subjects (albeit selectively), have now been reduced to objects under domination. India’s strategy is multi-pronged: It eliminates dissent through mass arrests, torture, and incarceration in far-flung Indian prisons. It manufactures political alternatives through parties like NC, PDP, and AIP, which do not challenge the status quo. It weaponizes statehood and local governance as distractions from the broader issue of right to self-determination. These pro-India parties are now struggling for the restoration of statehood, a demand that once had meaning in a semi-autonomous framework but has now become cosmetic in the face of settler colonization. Even Omar Abdullah, a loyalist of the Indian union, has launched a campaign to restore what Delhi once granted—underscoring the depth of betrayal even felt by those within India’s political sphere in Kashmir. The freedom movement, contrary to propaganda, has not been replaced—it has been sidelined, deferred, and suppressed. The slogans exist; the desire still burns; but the space for articulation has been squeezed in IIoJ&K . It is now essential for the movement to innovate—to adopt new tools of resistance such as, Media activism, Resistance poetry, Resistance literature, poetry, digital activism, and international advocacy through diaspora. These are not soft methods—they are potent forms of struggle that preserve identity, build solidarity, and challenge false narratives. The youth are the final and only enduring constituency. The elders must pass on their experiential wisdom, equipping the younger generation to navigate the harsh terrain of modern occupation. Resistance must evolve into a life cycle—one that is organic, strategic, and rooted in truth. Pakistan, as a state actor, has become a direct target of India’s regional ambition and the buffeting reply had created a balance and also the hope for Kashmiris facing direct indin kinetic wrath . It is no longer merely managing a conflict through non-state support; now, Pakistan’s own stability and strategic balancing against India are central to the future of Kashmir. A strong, sustainable Pakistan is the only viable guarantor of hope for Kashmiris in a world where power, not principle, shapes policy is purely the realistic frame work in anarchic world order. In post 5th August 2019 Kashmir is no longer simply occupied—it is annexed and is in the throes of demographic extinction. The post-5th August era is not merely about repression—it is about erasure. The silence of the world and the complacency of many only accelerate this process. But the Kashmiri resistance, though wounded, but alive. It waits—for direction, for Humanitarian assistance, and for a global awakening to its cause. Let the record show: Kashmiris did not give up. They are pushed into silence and t is our moral obligation who reside away from ruthless illegal occupation to represent those who are unrepresented in every and any forum which matters to bring the pain in open where it can be seen and dealt with. But silence is never the same as they will accept the status quo with interpretation but the status quo will only shake when the right to self-determination is given the chance to determine the will of the Kashmiris.
Dr. Waleed Rasool PhD (IR) Assistant Professor, Director institute of Dialogue, Devolvement & Diplomatic waleed.rasool@gmail.com
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.