Shabir Ahmad
Across the Line of Control, two sharply contrasting narratives have emerged around the relationship between the local population and the security establishment.
In Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Army has increasingly sought to project its engagement with the awaam through a combination of security operations, education, healthcare, sports, youth programmes and community outreach. In Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK), meanwhile, recurring demonstrations have brought to the fore public grievances over governance, electricity, taxation, prices, employment, development and what protesters describe as excessive interference by the security establishment.
The contrast is significant because it goes beyond the traditional India-Pakistan security narrative. It reflects two different approaches to the relationship between the people and the institutions that exercise power and influence in their respective territories.
Army’s engagement beyond the security mandate
For the Indian Army, particularly in the hinterland areas of Jammu and Kashmir, the relationship with civilians has long extended beyond counter-insurgency operations.
Army formations have established schools, organised medical camps, supported sports and cultural activities, assisted students and conducted programmes aimed at connecting young people with opportunities beyond their immediate surroundings.
Army Goodwill Schools have become one of the more visible components of this outreach. The stated objective of such initiatives is to provide educational opportunities while strengthening interaction between soldiers and local communities.
Army commanders have repeatedly described this engagement as part of a broader commitment to peace and development.
The approach is particularly visible in remote and border areas, where military formations frequently interact with villagers, students, athletes, community representatives and civil authorities.
In recent years, programmes involving youth exchanges, vocational training, sports competitions and educational tours have also been used to create avenues for young people to interact with institutions beyond the security sphere.
The underlying message is that the Army’s role is not confined to guarding the Line of Control or conducting counter-terrorism operations.
From confrontation to confidence-building
The relationship between civilians and security forces in Kashmir has, however, been shaped by decades of conflict.
There have been periods when military operations, restrictions and encounters generated considerable public anger. The presence of a large security apparatus in civilian areas has inevitably produced tensions.
Yet, over time, the Army has invested heavily in what it describes as confidence-building measures.
The objective is straightforward. Security cannot be sustained indefinitely through force alone, and public cooperation is essential for maintaining peace.
This is particularly important in counter-insurgency environments, where information from civilians can play a crucial role in preventing attacks, identifying threats and protecting communities.
For the Army, therefore, winning public confidence is not merely a humanitarian objective. It is also an important component of the security architecture.
PoJK: Protests driven by economic and political grievances
Across the LoC, the nature of public mobilisation has been markedly different.
PoJK has witnessed repeated protests over issues ranging from electricity tariffs and taxation to food prices, unemployment, governance and development.
Large demonstrations in recent years have highlighted growing dissatisfaction among sections of the population with the functioning of the administration.
The protests have also brought Pakistan’s security establishment into the political debate.
Protesters have at times accused authorities of using force against demonstrations and restricting dissent. The Pakistani state, on the other hand, has maintained that maintaining law and order is necessary and has rejected allegations that it seeks to suppress legitimate public demands.
The competing narratives underline a fundamental difference in perception. While authorities portray security institutions as guarantors of stability, protesters have increasingly questioned their role in political and administrative affairs.
The question of resources
One of the strongest common threads running through protests in PoJK has been the question of resources.
Residents have raised concerns about electricity generation and tariffs, despite the region’s substantial hydropower potential. Questions have also been raised over taxation, development spending, employment opportunities and the cost of living.
For ordinary residents, these are not abstract geopolitical questions. They are everyday issues affecting household budgets, employment and access to basic services.
The persistence of such grievances has allowed local movements to develop beyond individual demands and become broader campaigns for greater political and economic rights.
The security establishment and civilian space
The role of the military is another important point of difference.
In Pakistan, the military has historically exercised considerable influence over national politics and security policy. In PoJK, this has contributed to a perception among critics that civilian institutions do not always enjoy complete autonomy.
This perception has increasingly featured in public discourse during protests.
The Indian Army, by contrast, operates within India’s constitutional and civilian political framework, although its extensive presence in J&K means its interaction with civilian society remains politically and socially significant.
Its outreach programmes therefore serve another purpose. They demonstrate that the institution can be seen not only through the prism of security operations but also through its contribution to education, healthcare, sports and community development.
The youth factor
Perhaps nowhere is the contrast more visible than among the younger generation.
In Jammu and Kashmir, Army-supported sports competitions, educational initiatives, career guidance and exposure tours have sought to connect young people with opportunities beyond the conflict narrative.
The focus on youth is strategic as well as social. A generation that has greater access to education, employment, technology and national-level opportunities is less likely to view its future exclusively through the prism of conflict.
In PoJK, unemployment and limited economic opportunities have been among the issues repeatedly raised during public protests.
The comparison illustrates an important reality. For young people, the legitimacy of any institution is ultimately judged not only by its ability to provide security but also by whether it contributes to a better future.
A battle for public confidence
The contrasting experiences also demonstrate that the relationship between security forces and civilians cannot be measured simply by the number of soldiers deployed or operations conducted.
It is ultimately a question of public confidence.
An army may secure a territory through military strength, but durable peace requires the cooperation of the population.
In Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Army’s outreach programmes represent an attempt to build that relationship through direct engagement with communities.
In PoJK, continuing protests indicate that sections of the population remain dissatisfied with the way governance, resources and political authority are exercised.
The two situations are not identical, and the historical, constitutional and political circumstances on either side of the LoC are fundamentally different. But the contrast offers an important lesson.
Beyond the LoC
The LoC is not merely a military divide. It separates communities that share historical, cultural and familial links but have experienced very different political and security environments.
On one side, the Army increasingly presents itself as a partner in development while retaining its primary security role.
On the other, public protests have increasingly brought questions of governance, economic rights and the role of the security establishment to the forefront.
For the people living along the divided landscape, however, the ultimate measure remains remarkably similar: security, dignity, employment, development and a sense that their voices matter.
The strongest relationship between any security institution and the people it protects is therefore not built solely through weapons or deployments. It is built through trust.
And across the Line of Control, the contrasting public narratives suggest that the contest for the people’s confidence may ultimately prove as consequential as the contest over territory itself.
