Yoginder Kandhari
In the evolving political and social discourse of ‘New’ Kashmir, one absence is impossible to ignore: the near-total erasure of the Kashmiri Pandit community. This omission is neither accidental nor benign; it reflects a deliberate denial that exposes a deeper contradiction. Those who once invoked the Pandits’ tragedy through religio-electoral rhetoric have now quietly sidelined it. What is marketed as progress increasingly appears to be erasure, an expedient compromise shaped by political convenience. The current political establishment seems to have realised that narratives alone do not endear the ‘alienated’, and has accordingly offloaded the community as redundant baggage. That indeed is sheer political opportunism.
The story of the KPs is not a peripheral footnote but central to understanding Kashmir’s modern turmoil. In the early months of 1990, as insurgency surged, nearly 150,000 Pandits fled the Valley within a short span. What unfolded was not mere migration but the near-total disappearance of a centuries-old community from its ancestral homeland.
Families fled in haste, leaving behind homes and properties often encroached upon or sold under duress, as a systematic campaign reduced a once-thriving indigenous Pandit population to a scattered diaspora. For many, the exile was meant to be temporary; instead, it hardened into permanence. Thousands endured years in refugee camps in Jammu and elsewhere, rebuilding fractured lives even as the prospect of return receded into an increasingly distant horizon.
Political Profiteering: The Kashmir Files Phenomenon
This shift is perhaps most visible in the realm of exploitation of Pandits’ ‘pain’ for political profiteering. The film The Kashmir Files, projected as an unvarnished account of their tragedy, quickly became a national talking point. Amplified by state patronage, tax exemptions across several states and organised screenings for official audiences, it not only achieved remarkable commercial success but also served as a potent instrument for political mobilisation. The narrative of suffering was thrust into the mainstream, yet in a manner that appeared carefully aligned with the interests of those in power.
National Conscience to Afterthought and Tokenism
While most political parties remain culpable for their callous indifference to this man-made catastrophe, one party and its ideological patron sensed an opportunity to politically exploit the plight of the KPs. Their tragedy soon became the emotional and political backbone of a powerful national narrative. For years, especially during electoral cycles, the Pandits’ exodus was repeatedly invoked in public discourse. Their suffering- targeted killings, displacement, and atrocities, particularly against women- was projected as proof of governance and security failure and the cost of political complacency. Framed in stark and emotive terms, the issue was used to galvanise public opinion and shape electoral outcomes.
Yet, once political power was consolidated after the Abrogation of Article 370 and the ‘New’ Kashmir vision was rolled out around development, security, and integration, the Pandit issue, the regime’s foremost rallying point, was quietly pushed aside. The new narrative- packaged through policy announcements, outreach drives, and curated messaging- rarely addresses the community with anything close to its former urgency. A community once invoked as a symbol of moral clarity has all but disappeared from contemporary discourse. Even on the 36th anniversary of the exodus in January 2026, mainstream political voices offered guarded welcomes while questioning the prospects of permanent return, marking a stark shift from urgency to ambivalence.
Whatever is being done in the name of the KPs is largely tokenism. Official visits to migrant camps bring little relief to the most marginalised, many of whom continue to live in degrading conditions after losing their homes, hearths, and security in the Valley. Rechristening KPs as ‘Kashmiri Hindus’ appears to be an attempt to dilute the pain of their exile by merging it with the broader hardships of the marginalised segments of the Hindu population, thus normalising a distinct tragedy through an attitude bordering on social Darwinist indifference.
Recent efforts to reclaim encroached Pandit properties appear to be a mere eyewash. Revenue staff, often perceived as complicit with encroachers, now adjudicate, while for years thousands of cases have been languishing before Deputy Commissioners, who are the legal custodians of migrant property. The focus, it appears, is on mutual settlement with the encroachers. If a sweeping move by Sheikh Abdullah could unjustly dispossess Hindus of substantial landed assets in one stroke, what prevents the present establishment from recovering property snatched from Pandits since the 1990s? What is projected as outreach increasingly resembles a quiet offloading of moral responsibility—as if to say, “we tried but……”
Curating Silence: NGOs and Influencers
The narrative is increasingly driven by a powerful ecosystem, led by an ingenious NGO and amplified by social media influencers operating with tacit or direct institutional backing. Platforms such as last year’s Kashmir LitFest were revealing in their silences: the near-total absence of Pandits’ aspirations reflected a deeper erasure. When questioned, a mid-level organiser dismissed the concern, echoing a refrain that Pandits are an ‘ungrateful lot’ — a view that treats their story as closed, inconvenient, and unworthy of engagement. Such positioning aligns neatly with the prevailing appeasement of the Valley’s majority.
Within this framework, influencers addressing issues like drug abuse, radicalisation, and narco-terrorism play a constructive role. However, their approach to the Pandit issue highlights a more profound shift. The tragedy is reframed as exaggerated “victimhood,” while selective stories of success within the diaspora are presented as justification for the Pandits’ decision not to return. At the same time, the Valley is depicted as unsafe for them, even though it is marketed as secure and profitable for outside investment. In this emerging balance, the return of Pandits is viewed as a disruptive factor in a mutually beneficial arrangement. The resulting narrative is self-serving: their return is portrayed as neither viable nor necessary, and the ongoing story can be “won” without them. There is a belief among the key NGO and the Kashmir Civil Society that the generation that experienced the trauma of exodus will eventually pass, assuming that their descendants have no attachment to their ancestral land.
Entrenched Resistance: Society’s Reluctance to Reintegrate.
At the societal level, resistance to the community’s return appears deeper than is often acknowledged. Across sections of Kashmiri society, the exodus is often rationalised as part of a broader historical continuum rather than as an aberration demanding redress. This sentiment surfaces in subtle but telling ways, even in forums meant for dialogue and reconciliation, revealing discomfort with genuine reintegration. Even within wider intellectual circles, as seen at the Kashmir Litfest, there is a marked reluctance to confront the insurgency and its consequences, as though revisiting the past might unsettle carefully curated narratives of normality.
There is also a growing perception that sections of the establishment remain, at best, ambivalent toward such attitudes. Civil society groups and influential networks embedded across the Valley often shape discourse in ways that mirror this ambivalence.
Community Fragmentation: Weakening the Collective
The situation within the Pandit community is complicated by internal fragmentation. The most prominent voices often belong to the elite segment, which tends to favour maintaining the status quo. Meanwhile, the grassroots level is populated by ‘paid’ workers who mobilise crowds for small benefits. Numerous organisations, frequently operating at cross purposes, have muddled the community’s demands. Instead of presenting a unified vision for return, these groups tend to engage in symbolic gestures or internal disputes. This lack of coherence undermines their ability to influence policy and allows external narratives to take precedence.
The Path Forward: Restorative Justice or Perpetual Absence
Rehabilitation of Pandits, in any meaningful sense, cannot be achieved through selective remembrance. It requires a holistic engagement with the past, an acknowledgement of suffering across communities, and a commitment to restorative justice. The return of the KPs—those who are willing to come back—is central to this process. It is not simply a policy objective, but a test of intent. The government’s failure to even attempt to develop a roadmap makes it clear it is not serious about finding a solution.
For the ‘New’ Kashmir to truly move forward, it must confront the contradictions that underpin its present narrative. This involves recognising the Pandit experience not as a political tool or a cultural artefact, but as a living reality that demands resolution. It requires creating conditions—both physical and psychological—that enable return with dignity and security.
Until then, the absence of the KP will remain a defining feature of the ‘New’ Kashmir. It is an absence that cannot be obscured by rhetoric or replaced by symbolism. It is a reminder that the journey towards peace remains incomplete.
In the final analysis, no narrative of revival can claim legitimacy if it excludes those who once were integral to the Valley’s identity. The vanishing Pandit is not merely a missing community; it is a missing conscience.
[The author is a commentator on strategic issues and has authored two books on Kashmir]
