Nissar Ahmed Thakur
Recent remarks by Ashwani Kumar Chrungoo have reignited concerns over the Indian government’s settler colonial policies aimed at altering the demographic complexion of the occupied Kashmir Valley—a region with over 98% Muslim population.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Kolkata, Chrungoo, a BJP leader and former office bearer of a Kashmiri Pandit group, lifted the lid off the BJP’s game plan for Kashmir, which contains elements with the potential to turn the region into another Gaza. While much of his interview covered familiar territory, 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 “demographic challenge” extend beyond Kashmir to other parts of India where Muslims are, or risk becoming, a majority, citing Bengal, Assam, and Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal district. “So far as Kashmir is concerned, I believe the Indian State is thinking of addressing its demographic balancing,” he stated. “People are working on it.”
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 a region historically characterized by interfaith harmony. Creating ghettos or dividing the region along communal lines would be tantamount to erecting another Berlin Wall, separating communities that have coexisted for centuries despite their diverse faiths.
Panun Kashmir, an organization representing displaced Kashmiri Pandits, has long demanded a separate homeland in the Valley, even though Pandits constitute less than 4% of the population. The 1981 census recorded the Hindu population at under four per cent; by 2011, following their displacement in 1989–90, it had declined to just under three per cent. Carving out a separate Union Territory for this community is a disastrous recipe likely to create social disorder, deepen communal rifts, and further complicate a region already scarred by extensive bloodshed.
These discussions reveal a grand design aimed at curtailing the political agency of Kashmiri Muslims by manipulating demographics. Since 2019, political, legal, and constitutional changes have significantly transformed the Valley’s political environment. In this context, phrases like “balancing the population” signal that the majority community is being viewed less as citizens and more as a demographic problem to be solved.
Balancing the population would mean settling millions of non-state subject Hindus in the Valley, where the Hindu-to-Muslim ratio stood at roughly 2:98 in 1991. Such a move would be deeply destabilizing for the majority community, which has experienced progressive disempowerment in recent years, further eroding trust and exacerbating tensions.
The BJP appears to be repeating a strategy reminiscent of the Jammu region in 1947, when large-scale violence killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims and forced nearly half a million to migrate to Pakistan. The difference now, as Chrungoo noted, is the plan to import large numbers of Hindus from mainland India—a move that risks inflaming historical grievances and polarizing an already fragile social landscape.
It is essential to recall that Kashmiris across political divides have consistently maintained that Kashmiri Pandits are an inseparable part of the Valley’s social fabric. 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 never to the return itself, but to segregated townships or enclaves, which would institutionalize separation rather than restore shared spaces.
The Panun Kashmir organization remains controversial even within the Pandit community. While it welcomed the 2019 abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, many Kashmiri Pandits have challenged its approach, arguing that some leaders pursue political gains at the expense of the community’s genuine interests. Critics contend that advocating separate enclaves risks entrenching divisions rather than fostering coexistence.
No BJP leader has clarified Chrungoo’s remarks, yet his assertions carry unmistakable settler-colonial undertones. In a region already scarred by decades of conflict, such language risks deepening mistrust and pushing Kashmir toward a prolonged, high-stakes situation similar to contested territories like Palestine.
The tragedy of the Kashmiri Pandits’ displacement remains profound. Yet it is equally unfortunate that few acknowledge the tens of thousands of Kashmiris forced to flee the Valley since 1990, or the millions who migrated to Azad Kashmir during 1947, 1965, and 1971. These communities also have an equal right to return to their native places. However, this cannot be achieved by creating anxiety among the majority community or framing justice purely in demographic terms.
When political discourse reduces communities to numbers, it risks turning legitimate policy debates into zero-sum struggles over identity. History demonstrates that policies aimed at “correcting” demographics invariably contribute to social unrest. In Kashmir, where decades of conflict have torn the social fabric, such rhetoric risks widening divides rather than fostering reconciliation.
The conversation about Kashmir’s future cannot revolve around balancing population ratios. It must focus on restoring trust, rebuilding social cohesion, and addressing historical grievances through empathy and dialogue—not policies that pit communities against each other.
Kashmir’s strength lies in its diversity. 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 resolutions. Settling communities in separate enclaves or invoking demographic rhetoric may offer short-term political gains, but such ventures cannot provide a durable framework for reconciliation, shared civic life, or lasting peace.
Writer is director media communications Kashmir Institute of International Relations (KIIR)
Can be reached at;- nissarthakur@gmail.com
