Umer Bin AjmalBefore the April 22 deadly attacks in India-administered Kashmir, New Delhi had spent years building a narrative that normalcy had returned to the Himalayan valley after decades of insurgency.
In the past few days, as officials of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government have promised to take revenge and pursue the perpetrators, one common thread in their statements has been that Muslim-majority Kashmir was finally witnessing prosperity, driven by the influx of tourists who have now been targeted.
But according to Dr. Muzzammil Ayyub Thakur, a prominent pro-independence Kashmiri activist and director of The Justice Foundation, all the talk about normalcy was a carefully constructed illusion as popular grievances of the Kashmiris remain unaddressed.
In an interview with TRT World earlier this month, Thakur argued that New Delhi’s efforts to portray normalcy in Kashmir were part of a deeper strategy to erase Kashmiri demands for self-determination and legitimise what he described as a “colonial occupation”.
“The Indian government wants to make it more complicated, but the path to self-determination is extremely simple,” Thakur said, referencing United Nations Security Council resolutions that call for a plebiscite in the disputed territory.
In his now-viral speech at Oxford Union, released in January 2025 and met with fierce reactions in Indian media, Thakur emphasised that Kashmir’s right to self-determination remains internationally recognised, despite India’s longstanding refusal to allow a referendum.
He drew parallels to East Timor, South Sudan and even Scotland, where populations were given the chance to determine their political futures.
Colonial legacy
Thakur also challenged India’s image of itself as a post-colonial nation that fought British imperialism. Instead, he described modern India as a “coloniser” in its own right.
“Just because 70 years have passed doesn’t make it right,” he said. “Time does not legitimise colonisation.”
Pointing to Kashmir, Junagadh, and Hyderabad—princely states that acceded to India under controversial circumstances after the 1947 partition—Thakur argued that India’s expansion after independence mirrored the coercive tactics of imperial powers.
This perspective finds echoes in the broader academic discourse: historians like A.G. Noorani and scholars of post-colonial theory have argued that India’s integration of these states was not always based on the free will of their people.
Thakur further compared India’s projected image, rooted in Gandhinian legacy of non-violence, colourful cultural festivals, and the global popularity of yoga and Bollywood, to a “brand” that hid deeper realities of repression, particularly under Modi’s government.
Since the August 2019 abrogation of Article 370, which revoked India-administered Kashmir’s special autonomy, the Indian government has claimed that the region has witnessed unprecedented development.
Government officials often cited new investments, infrastructure projects, and an increase in tourism as evidence of progress.
Thakur rejected this narrative.
“The introduction of development hasn’t increased the quality of life for Kashmiris,” he said. “It hasn’t changed the demand for the right to self-determination.”
Reports by rights organisations back his claims.
According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Kashmir has seen continued crackdowns on civil liberties, mass arrests and restrictions on journalists and political activists post-2019.
Just last year, the UN Special Rapporteurs expressed concerns over the human rights situation in the region.
Earlier this year, reports emerged of two truck drivers in Kashmir being reportedly killed under suspicious circumstances in separate incidents. Simultaneously, disappearances, custodial deaths and intimidation of religious leaders have raised alarms among local and international observers.
The Indian government’s ban on two moderate Hurriyat organisations fits into a familiar pattern of political suppression—but does it also serve a deeper strategic purpose?
The normalcy narrative
A notable development in recent years has been the rise of Indian vloggers travelling to Kashmir, showcasing scenic landscapes, bustling markets and smiling locals—all presented as proof of normalcy.
Thakur viewed these portrayals as another tool of “state-sponsored propaganda”.
“It’s putting makeup on a pig,” he said bluntly. “The goal is to desensitise both Indians and Kashmiris, creating a false narrative that resistance and demands for freedom no longer exist.”
He pointed to the irony of vloggers simultaneously portraying Kashmiris as both violent and welcoming, depending on the messaging needed.
“There are certain vloggers that go to Kashmir, and some of them seem to be self-styled comedians,” he said.
“I think one of the comedians, he pretended that he was being welcomed with stones because apparently Kashmiris have a culture of throwing stones, which is not necessarily untrue, but we throw stones at military personnel that occupy, oppress, rape, torture and kill us.”
Similar critiques have been voiced by scholars, media analysts and rights groups, who argue that ‘normalcy campaigns’ often ignore the heavy military presence and the daily realities faced by Kashmiris under tight surveillance and security laws like the Public Safety Act (PSA) and the Unlawful Activities Prevention of Atrocities Act (UAPA).
Forgotten Kashmir?
The relatively quieter years since 2019 have led some to speculate whether the Kashmiri struggle has been relegated to history.
Thakur disagreed.
“If we extrapolate based on past cycles, another uprising in Kashmir is imminent,” he said.
Kashmir has seen cycles of mass uprisings in 2008, 2010 and 2016—each separated by periods of apparent calm.
Critics like Arundhati Roy and Dr. Siddiq Wahid among others have observed that beneath these lulls, deep resentment simmers, often reigniting when political repression intensifies.
Thakur said India’s belief in “erasing” the memory of resistance was dangerously shortsighted.
Thakur’s outspoken criticism has not spared him from being a target. Indian media outlets and nationalist commentators often accuse him, along with many other Kashmiri activists, of being an agent of Pakistan’s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
He dismissed such allegations as part of a broader strategy to delegitimise Kashmiri voices.
“Anyone who doesn’t conform to India’s vision automatically becomes a ‘Pakistani’,” he told TRT World.
“Even Muslim actors like Shah Rukh Khan, Saif Ali Khan and Salman Khan face hostility when they speak out. It’s a reflection of how dissent, especially Muslim dissent, is perceived in India today.”
This pattern of labelling dissenters as ‘anti-national’ has been widely documented by organisations like the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which have raised concerns over shrinking space for free expression in India.
Thakur said the democratic backsliding happening in Kashmir was not an isolated phenomenon but part of a broader erosion of pluralism across India.
“India needs democracy more than Iraq and Afghanistan did after 9/11,” he said.
