The Flawed Premise: A Rebuttal to Rishi Suri on Kashmir

The Flawed Premise: A Rebuttal to Rishi Suri on Kashmir

Rishi Suri’s recent opinion piece, which appeared in daily morning times Srinager Indian occupied Kashmir ,while eloquently lamenting the coarseness of public discourse, builds its argument on a foundation of historical revisionism and a profound misdiagnosis of the Kashmir conflict. His central thesis—that turmoil in Indian occupied J& K stems from a failure of “smarter politics” and internal discord—conveniently sidesteps the root cause: the systematic denial of a political right, internationally recognized and solemnly pledged.

 

By Altaf Hussain Wani 

Suri speaks of the “price” Kashmir has paid, attributing it vaguely to separatist rhetoric and external sponsors. This is a staggering oversimplification. The price Kashmiris are paying is not for failed politics, but for the denial of the very right to determine that politics. The foundational event is not the rise of militancy in the late 1980s, but the subversion of the democratic will in 1947 and the subsequent broken promises. The Government of India itself took the issue to the United Nations, which, through successive resolutions, affirmed the principle that the future of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided through a free and impartial plebiscite. To reduce seven decades of political struggle, marked by mass mobilizations, electoral boycotts, and persistent demands for that promised right, to mere “separatist rhetoric” is to erase history. What Suri dismisses as an “idea” is, in fact, an unresolved legal and political commitment.

 

Furthermore, his pillar of “counter-terrorism clarity” inverts reality. What the Indian state terms “counter-terrorism” has, for countless Kashmiris, been experienced as state-sponsored terrorism—a relentless campaign of militarization, enforced disappearances, torture, and impunity under laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). The “violence” he mentions is not a symmetrical force but exists within a context of overwhelming, institutionalized state violence used to suppress political dissent. The voices “calling for rights” have not been engaged with politically; they have been criminalized, jailed, and silenced. To speak of accountability for Kashmiri leaders while ignoring the absolute lack of accountability for state forces is to argue in bad faith.

 

Suri rightly calls for debate, but his prescription is hollow in the current context. Debate with whom, and how? The Indian government has systematically closed every door for a meaningful political dialogue. The events of August 2019—the unilateral annexation of Jammu and Kashmir, the dissolution of its statehood, the mass arrests, and the ongoing demographic engineering—are not policies of “engagement” but of enforced silence and absorption. You cannot champion “civic empathy” while simultaneously dismantling the very constitutional framework that gave the region a semblance of political identity. The demand for dialogue is not a refusal to move forward; it is a plea to address the core issue that has been forcibly buried, not resolved.

 

Regarding the criticism of the Mirwaiz, Suri’s call for context is selective. Any rational critique must indeed consider the historical role of the institution. But it must also acknowledge the suffocating political environment in which figures like Mirwaiz Umar Farooq now operate—an environment crafted by the Indian state. For years, he was either incarcerated or severely restricted, his voice muted. The space for any Kashmiri political expression that falls outside the narrowly defined limits of New Delhi’s narrative has been violently constricted. Criticizing leadership is valid, but it is intellectually dishonest to do so without acknowledging that the choices available to them are dictated by an occupying power that has shown zero tolerance for genuine political dissent.

 

True peace in Kashmir will not emerge from “smarter anchors” within India’s imposed framework or from “economic stakeholding” that treats a political wound as a developmental project. It can only be achieved by reopening the dialogue on the real issue: the political future of Kashmir and the rights of its people, as promised and internationally acknowledged. This requires India to move beyond its policy of annexation and destruction and to engage, without preconditions, with all stakeholders, including Pakistan and the true representatives of the Kashmiri people.

 

Kashmir does not need to “stop living in the past.” It needs a partner willing to honestly address the historical grievances of that past. It does not need a debate on how to better manage its occupation, but a courageous conversation on how to end it. The path to “political adulthood” and “reclaiming political seriousness” that Suri yearns for begins not with lecturing Kashmiris on their discourse, but with India honoring its own old promises and confronting its contemporary actions. Until then, calls for “dignity in disagreement” ring hollow when the most fundamental agreement—on the right to self-determination—remains the greatest point of violent contention.

Chairman Kashmir institute of International Relations and can be reached:- chairman@kiir.org.pk On X @sultan1913 

Facebook Twitter

Related Detail