Dreaming of a peaceful society is a noble pursuit that has inspired countless movements throughout history. Visionaries who imagine a future grounded in justice, dignity, and harmony often serve as catalysts for change. However, the situation becomes problematic when such dreams are presented as the undeniable truth, overshadowing the harsh realities experienced by those living under these conditions. When an idealized version of peace is imposed as fact, it risks becoming a constructed narrative rather than an authentic reflection of life on the ground.
This dissonance was evident on March 12, 2026, during the closing ceremony of the 2nd All India Police Kabaddi Cluster 2025–26 held at the MA Stadium in Jammu. The Lieutenant Governor of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, Manoj Sinha, proclaimed that the current peace in Kashmir—one that supposedly allows families to come together, athletes to compete, and communities to flourish—was achieved at a significant cost. Yet, one must question what kind of peace he was referring to. Is it truly peace when the media is heavily censored, dissenting opinions are stifled, human rights defenders are silenced, and political leaders remain behind bars? Such conditions suggest not peace, but rather a fragile calm maintained through repression.
On the very day of Sinha’s speech, the Supreme Court of India highlighted the prolonged delay in the trial of Shabir Ahmed Shah, a prominent Kashmiri political figure often likened to Nelson Mandela for his decades-long struggle. The Court granted Shah bail, acknowledging that the nearly 39 years he has spent in detention without conviction across multiple cases was unjustifiable. This stark example raises a critical question: if this is the price paid for peace, who truly benefits, and who bears the burden?
The contradictions in the official narrative became even more apparent the following day. On March 13, 2026, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, the chairman of the Hurriyat Conference and a respected religious leader, was once again prevented from leading congregational prayers at Srinagar’s historic Jamia Masjid. This occurred on Jumatul Wida, the final Friday of Ramadan, a day of immense spiritual significance when thousands of worshippers gather. For the seventh year in a row, the Mirwaiz was barred from addressing the faithful, underscoring the persistent restrictions on religious and political expression despite claims of normalcy.
These incidents are not isolated. Numerous independent observers and international human rights experts have voiced serious concerns about the shrinking space for civil liberties in Kashmir. Mary Lawlor, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, has repeatedly highlighted the deteriorating conditions for civil society actors in the region. She has called for the immediate release of prominent activists like Khurram Parvez and urged authorities to halt investigations that appear designed to criminalize legitimate human rights work. Parvez, who has been internationally recognized as one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people, remains imprisoned despite his global stature.
Similarly, the detention of journalist Irfan Mehraj has sparked widespread condemnation. The All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice condemned his arrest as part of a broader crackdown on press freedom and freedom of expression in Kashmir. Amnesty International described the situation as a “travesty,” warning that the environment for dissent continues to shrink, with authorities employing intimidation, surveillance, and detention to silence critics. Human Rights Watch has echoed these concerns, with Meenakshi Ganguly, the organization’s deputy Asia director, noting that while violence may have declined, fundamental freedoms remain severely restricted. Kashmiris still face significant barriers to exercising their rights to free speech, association, and peaceful assembly, fearing arrest or prolonged detention.
For many Kashmiris, the surface-level calm—marked by tourists, bustling markets, and late-night shopping—masks a deeper unrest. A young Kashmiri entrepreneur captured this sentiment vividly, describing the situation as a soda bottle under pressure, seemingly calm on the outside but ready to explode at any moment. This metaphor highlights the simmering tensions beneath the official façade of peace.
Another worrying trend is the increasing censorship of academic and intellectual work related to Kashmir. In August 2025, international organizations such as the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) condemned the ban on 25 scholarly and journalistic publications concerning the region. They criticized the move as a direct assault on freedom of expression and academic inquiry, arguing that suppressing research under vague national security claims undermines democratic accountability and violates international human rights standards. This censorship not only silences scholars but also threatens the preservation of historical records and critical investigations into enforced disappearances, impunity, and human rights abuses.
The broader pattern of repression is reinforced by laws like the Public Safety Act (PSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which have been widely criticized for enabling prolonged detention without trial. Human rights organizations argue that these laws are increasingly weaponized to silence journalists, activists, and political opponents. Even within Kashmir, voices of dissent are emerging. Former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti has publicly urged the administration to end media censorship and ensure that journalists can operate without fear or harassment. These calls for greater openness starkly contrast with the official narrative of peace and normalcy.
True peace cannot be measured merely by the absence of visible conflict or the presence of tourists. It requires justice, protection of fundamental rights, and the freedom for individuals to express themselves without fear of reprisal. The unconditional release of political prisoners such as Shabir Ahmed Shah, Mohammad Yasin Malik, Masarat Aalam, Khurram Parvez, Aasia Andrabi, Sofi Fehmeeda, and Nahida Nasreen would be a significant step toward creating a more conducive environment in Kashmir.
If the authorities genuinely believe that peace has been established in the region, they should have no reservations about allowing independent international observers—including United Nations Special Rapporteurs, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other credible organizations—to conduct impartial assessments. Only through transparent scrutiny can the true state of affairs be understood, moving beyond official proclamations to the lived experiences of Kashmir’s people. Until such openness is embraced, the proclaimed peace will remain nothing more than an elusive dream, disconnected from the reality of justice and freedom that the people of Kashmir deserve.
