Scholarly Perspectives on Militarization and Postcolonial Statehood in Kashmir

The academic study of militarization in Kashmir is shifting toward an analysis of “coloniality” as a permanent feature of modern statecraft. Research by sociologists, such as Niharika Pandit of Queen Mary University of London, challenges traditional international relations frameworks by arguing that military occupation is not an exceptional state of emergency but a structural logic embedded in postcolonial governance. By focusing on the “everyday politics of living,” scholars are increasingly documenting how residents in militarized zones negotiate, resist, and survive under the persistent presence of state security apparatuses.

How Militarization Functions as a Logic of Coloniality

Conventional international relations theory often treats militarization as an aberrant or temporary response to conflict. However, recent scholarship suggests that in contexts like Kashmir, military presence is a foundational element of the state’s administrative and territorial control. According to research published in journals such as Critical Kashmir Studies, this framework moves beyond the binary focus on the India-Pakistan nation-state conflict. Instead, it examines how postcolonial states replicate colonial-era mechanisms—such as land appropriation, movement restrictions, and resource control—to domesticate resistance. This perspective asserts that the “post” in postcolonial is often contradicted by the state’s continued reliance on colonial-era legislative and military tools to manage dissident populations.

The Everyday Politics of Living Under Occupation

Focusing on the “everyday” allows researchers to move beyond the dichotomy of victimhood versus resistance. Drawing on frameworks established by scholars like Ilana Feldman, this approach maps the impact of checkpoints, communication blackouts, and the presence of armed personnel in domestic spaces. This methodology reveals that occupation is not a “total” event that completely erases agency. Rather, it is a daily, ongoing negotiation. By documenting how civilians maintain routines, trade, and social connections despite constant surveillance, sociologists argue that the “politics of living” serves as a primary site of persistence and quiet defiance against state-imposed order.

Intersectionality and Political Agency

Anticolonial feminist theory provides a critical lens for understanding how gender, sexuality, and racialization organize state power in militarized zones. In the context of Kashmir, state discourses frequently rely on racialized stereotypes—portraying the majority Muslim population as inherently misogynist or homophobic—to justify security interventions. According to analysis by scholars in the field, these narratives are used to legitimize carceral practices, including sexual violence and the destruction of civilian property. By analyzing these social relations as interlocking systems, researchers can demonstrate how military occupation exacerbates existing social hierarchies and how resistance movements must address these intersecting oppressions to be effective.

The Rise of Anti-Gender Politics and Authoritarianism

The emergence of anti-gender and anti-feminist political agendas is increasingly linked to the global rise of right-wing authoritarianism. In India, researchers have observed that ideologies like Hindutva nationalism utilize the policing of gender and sexuality to define the boundaries of “legitimate” citizenship. Legislative efforts, such as the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, are frequently cited by academics as evidence of how the state seeks to discipline dissent by enforcing narrow, exclusionary definitions of identity. This trend suggests that the governance of gender is not separate from broader state efforts to suppress political opposition among marginalized groups, including religious minorities and those living in borderland regions.

Future Directions in Critical Security Studies

Current research is moving toward a more collaborative model that bridges the gap between academic inquiry and activist practice. Future monographs and projects are expected to focus on the following themes:

• Abolitionist Frameworks: Expanding the study of carcerality beyond traditional prison systems to include the broader “carceral state.”
• Anti-Capitalist Imaginaries: Investigating how militarism and neoliberal economic policies intersect to entrench control over land and resources.
• Collaborative Knowledge Production: Prioritizing the voices of those living in marginalized communities, ensuring that research remains accountable to the people affected by the structural violence being studied.

As young scholars enter the field of International Relations, the emphasis is shifting toward an “accountable” scholarship. This requires researchers to explicitly consider the power dynamics inherent in their work—questioning who they represent, who they align with, and how their findings contribute to broader social and political struggles.