Balancing Populations in Kashmir: Is Another Gaza in the Making?

 

By Nisar Ahmed Thakur 

‎‎The recent remarks of Ashwani Kumar Chrungoo have once again ignited a sensitive debate over the Indian government’s settler colonial policies aimed at changing the demographic complexion of the Kashmir Valley—a region with over 98% Muslim population.

In an interview to The Telegraph, Kolkata Mr. Chrungoo, a BJP leader who has served as an office bearer of a group representing a section of Kashmiri Pandits who left the Valley in the early 1990s during the tenure of then Governor Jagmohan, lifted the lid off the BJP’s game plan on Kashmir, which, at prima facie, contains all the elements with the potential to turn the region into another Gaza.

While much of his interview covered issues long discussed in the public domain, the most explosive revelation came when he suggested that the Indian state is actively seeking to “balance” the Valley’s population by settling lakhs of Hindus from outside, confirming fears widely held among the Muslim population since the constitutional changes of 2019.

Chrungoo argued that efforts to address this so-called “demographic challenge” are not confined to Kashmir but extend to other parts of India where Muslims are, or risk becoming, a majority. ‎He cited Bengal, where BJP leaders have spoken openly about “Bangladeshi and Rohingya infiltrators”, Assam, and the Sambhal district of Uttar Pradesh, where numerous mosques, mazars, and madrasas have been demolished.

‎‎“So far as Kashmir is concerned, I believe the Indian State is thinking of addressing its demographic balancing, its demographic challenge; I say that people are thinking on these lines… People are working on it”, he told The Telegraph.

Among the proposals he referenced is the creation of a Union Territory covering half of Kashmir to settle Pandits—a plan fraught with catastrophic implications for the region that has been home to multiple religions and ethnicities, with a centuries-old tradition of interfaith harmony and coexistence. The purported plan may fit well with the BJP’s broader scheme of things or massage the ego of certain self-proclaimed leaders of the Kashmiri Pandits; however, creating ghettos or dividing the region along communal lines would be tantamount to erecting another Berlin Wall, separating communities that have lived side by side and coexisted harmoniously despite their diverse faiths and religions.

Pertinently, Panun Kashmir, an organization representing Kashmiri Pandits, has been calling for a separate homeland in the Kashmir Valley, even though Pandits make up less than 4 percent of the total population. The demand has faced serious criticism from multiple quarters, with opponents arguing that it is not only impracticable but also tantamount to dividing the Valley on communal lines. The 1981 census found the Hindu population in the Valley at less than four per cent, and by 2011, following their self-displacement in 1989–90, it had declined to just under three per cent. Thus, the idea of carving out a separate Union Territory from the Valley for this particular community is a disastrous recipe, likely to create social disorder, deepen rifts between communities, and further complicate the Kashmir issue—a region that has already witnessed extensive bloodshed and violence due to India’s refusal to address the problem and respect the political aspirations of the majority community.

‎Taken together, these discussions reveal a grand design aimed at curtailing the political agency of the Kashmiri Muslims by manipulating the region’s demographics. Since 2019, political, legal, and constitutional changes introduced by the Indian government have significantly transformed the Valley’s political environment.

In this context, phrases like “balancing the population” are interpreted as signals that the majority community is being viewed less as citizens and more as a demographic problem.

‎‎Balancing the population would mean settling millions of Hindus — non-state subjects — in the Valley, where the Hindu-to-Muslim ratio stood at roughly 2:98 in 1991. Any such move would be deeply destabilizing for the majority community, which has experienced relative disempowerment in nearly every sphere of life in recent years. The social and psychological impact of such a policy could be profound, further eroding trust and exacerbating existing tensions.

‎‎The BJP appears to be repeating a strategy in the Valley reminiscent of what occurred in the Jammu region in 1947, when large-scale violence led to the killing of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and forced nearly half a million to migrate to Pakistan. The difference now, as Chrungoo aptly noted, is the plan to import large numbers of Hindus from mainland India for settlement. Such a move risks inflaming historical grievances and could further polarize an already fragile social landscape.

‎‎It is essential to recall here that Kashmiris, across political divides, have consistently maintained that Kashmiri Pandits are an inseparable part of the Valley’s social fabric. Apart from the pro-Indian political leadership, the leaders of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, including Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and the late Syed Ali Shah Geelani, repeatedly emphasized that Pandits must return with dignity and honour. Their opposition was not to the return itself, but to segregated townships or enclaves, which they said would institutionalize separation and divide the region along communal lines rather than restore shared spaces.

‎‎The Panun Kashmir organization, meanwhile, has long been controversial even within the Pandit community. While it strongly welcomed the 2019 abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, many Kashmiri Pandits have publicly challenged its approach, arguing that some leaders have pursued political gains at the expense of the community’s genuine interests. Critics and independent observers contend that advocating separate enclaves risks entrenching divisions rather than fostering coexistence.

‎‎So far, no one from the BJP has clarified or contextualized Chrungoo’s remarks. Yet his assertions such as “balancing the population of the Valley” carry unmistakable settler-colonial undertones. In a region already scarred by decades of conflict, such language risks deepening mistrust and tension, raising fears that Kashmir could be pushed toward a prolonged, high-stakes situation similar to contested territories like Palestine.

The tragedy of the Kashmiri Pandits’ displacement in the 1990s remains a profound wound. Yet it is equally unfortunate that few speak of the tens of thousands of Kashmiris forced to flee the Valley since 1990, or the millions who migrated to Azad Kashmir and other parts of Pakistan during 1947, 1965, and 1971. These communities also have an equal right to return to their native places and live a dignified life. Their return, safe, dignified, and voluntary, is both a moral and social imperative. However, this cannot be achieved by creating anxiety among the majority community or by framing justice purely in demographic terms.

Sadly, when political discourse reduces a community to numbers, it risks turning legitimate policy debates into a zero-sum struggle over identity and belonging.

‎‎ History bears testimony to the fact that policies aimed at “correcting” demographics or “balancing” populations have, always, contributed to social unrest and conflict.

In Kashmir, where decades of belligerent Indian occupation have torn the very social fabric of Kashmiri society, such rhetoric risks widening existing divides rather than fostering reconciliation. At its core, the conversation about Kashmir’s future cannot and should not revolve around balancing population ratios. It must focus on restoring trust between communities, rebuilding social cohesion, and addressing the region’s historical problems in their proper context. Above all, healing from the past requires empathy, respect, and dialogue—not policies that appear to pit one community against another.

Kashmir’s beauty lies in its diversity. It has been a mosaic of communities living side by side for generations, enjoying complete harmony. These communities can collectively envision a future, provided they are allowed to determine it through a free, fair, and impartial plebiscite, as recommended by United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions.  

Settling communities in separate enclaves or invoking demographic rhetoric may offer short-term solutions, but any such venture, devoid of substance, cannot provide a durable framework for reconciliation, shared civic life, and, above all, lasting peace and stability.