October 26 was once again observed in J&K by the government as a holiday to mark the day Kashmir acceded to India in 1947. It was on this day that Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession. However, the accession was considered politically complete only after it received the endorsement of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the popular leader of the time. This move was welcomed by Kashmiris, who felt that India wanted to take them along by respecting their aspirations rather than imposing its will on them.Unfortunately, relations between Sheikh Abdullah and the Indian leadership soon soured, for reasons best known to them. Sheikh Abdullah later changed his stance and began advocating self determination under the auspices of the United Nations. This turn of events not only led to Kashmiris being increasingly viewed with suspicion but also provided ammunition to Hindutva forces in India, who regarded Kashmir’s special status as an obstacle to its complete integration with the Union. Eventually, in 2019, after securing the required parliamentary majority, they succeeded in abrogating Article 370, a move widely challenged as unconstitutional.Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.Seven years later, despite the Bharatiya Janata Party’s assumption that this move would alter global attitudes, Kashmir continues to figure in international discourse as a dispute yet to be resolved. At the recent session of the United Nations General Assembly, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan once again referred to Kashmir. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reiterated his country’s familiar position that the issue should be resolved through dialogue in accordance with relevant United Nations resolutions. Separately, on the sidelines of the UNGA, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s Contact Group reaffirmed its “support for the right to self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir”.India, of course, maintained that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral and inalienable part of the country and that the matter is an internal affair in which no external party has a locus standi.And so the familiar diplomatic ritual concluded. Each side reiterated its established position, claimed to have made its point and returned home. But in Kashmir, nothing has changed .The speeches ended, but the lived reality of its people did not.Nearly eight decades after accession, Kashmir remains one of the most heavily militarised regions in the world. Security forces guard its roads, towns and villages, and their presence permeates everyday life. While military deployments along international borders are intended to guard against external threats, the extraordinary security presence within Kashmir is experienced by many of its inhabitants as a constant reminder that they are themselves treated as potential threats and live under a constant cloud of suspicion.For an ordinary Kashmiri, the day can begin with news of raids conducted by various agencies in the name of counterterrorism, corruption investigations or other security related operations. Homes and offices are searched, families are subjected to questioning and personal lives are disrupted, often leaving people uncertain about what lies ahead. Government employees are dismissed arbitrarily on allegations of links with or sympathy for terrorism, leaving entire families to bear the consequences of decisions that can be difficult to challenge.Even former militants who surrendered or completed their prison sentences, and who have since grown old enough to become grandparents, continue to receive summons to police stations. The consequences extend far beyond the individuals concerned. Their children and grandchildren watch as their elders are summoned, questioned and humiliated, often without understanding why the past continues to dictate the present.Such experiences do not go unnoticed by the younger generation. They are growing up with the unsettling impression that no matter how much time passes, a Kashmiri will remain a suspect first and a citizen thereafter. Thousands of people, especially youth, still face difficulties in obtaining simple documents like passports on security related grounds, affecting their access to education, employment and opportunities abroad.The cumulative effect is deeply damaging. Laws and administrative procedures that should protect citizens and regulate public life have been weaponised to control their lives, more so since the unconstitutional act of August 2019, which fundamentally altered Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional relationship with the Union.The decision to join India was rooted in hopeTherefore the question Kashmir poses to India is not merely about security, constitutional arrangements or territorial sovereignty. It is about the promise that shaped the hopes and aspirations of generations of Kashmiris when the decision to accede to India was made.Kashmir’s leadership chose to accede to India despite the presence of powerful forces that envisioned the country as a Hindu nation. That choice was made against the backdrop of Partition, when the subcontinent was engulfed in communal violence and the division of territory was accompanied by the painful separation of communities. The decision to join India rather than Pakistan was rooted in the hope that a Muslim majority Kashmir could preserve its distinct identity within a secular, democratic and pluralistic republic.It was a wager on an idea of India in which religion would not determine citizenship, diversity would not be treated as a threat and constitutional guarantees would protect the distinct character of its constituent regions.Kashmiris placed their faith in Gandhi’s India rather than Jinnah’s Pakistan. They believed that their Muslim identity, cultural inheritance and political distinctiveness could flourish within a country whose founding ideals rejected the notion that the state belonged exclusively to one religious community.The India that inspired that faith was shaped by leaders whose moral authority and political vision helped the country emerge from the trauma of Partition. Gandhi saw in Kashmir a glimmer of hope when communal hatred had engulfed much of the subcontinent. Jawaharlal Nehru recognised Kashmir’s unique place in India and spoke of its potential to serve as a showcase of the country’s diversity. B. R. Ambedkar helped shape a constitutional order founded on equality, liberty and fraternity, within which Kashmir’s special constitutional position was established.Kashmir now finds itself caught in a painful contradiction. At international forums, India invokes its territorial integrity and insists that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of the country. Yet the people whose belonging is being asserted often experience suspicion, insecurity and humiliation in their daily lives. A territory can be claimed in the language of sovereignty, but genuine belonging cannot be secured through force.The treatment of Kashmiris outside the Valley further deepens this anxiety. Reports of a bus carrying Kashmiris being attacked in Haryana, with its driver allegedly subjected to derogatory abuse, offer a disturbing reminder that prejudice does not stop at Kashmir’s geographical boundaries. When Kashmiris are targeted because of their origin or identity, this alienates them further.Was that hope farsighted enough?This brings us to an uncomfortable but necessary question. Was the decision to accede to India, taken in the belief that it represented a secular and democratic alternative to a theocratic state, wise and farsighted?Kashmir’s accession did more than establish a territorial relationship. It became an important symbol of the possibility of a pluralistic India in which a Muslim majority region could retain its identity and belong without surrendering its distinctiveness.That is precisely why the fate of Kashmir matters far beyond its geographical boundaries.The forces seeking to redefine India as a Hindu nation view diversity not as a source of strength but as an obstacle to their ideological project. Kashmir, with its Muslim majority population and distinct political history, inevitably occupies a central place in this contest over the country’s identity. The irony is profound. A Kashmir whose accession has repeatedly been invoked to affirm India’s unity in diversity is today experiencing deep internal alienation, even as an appearance of calm is projected through an overwhelming security presence.The country caught a glimpse of what coercive restrictions and police action can mean when protests by young people at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar on July 22 and October 10 brought the confrontation between citizens and the state into the national spotlight. For many Kashmiris, such scenes are painfully familiar. What elsewhere becomes a moment of public outrage has been part of the lived experience of successive generations in Kashmir, particularly since 2019.The question is whether the rest of India can recognise this connection. Can the outrage felt when young people face force in the national capital translate into an understanding of what Kashmiris have endured for decades? Can the humiliation of being treated as suspects, the uncertainty created by arbitrary restrictions and the fear generated by the constant presence of coercive authority be recognised as human experiences rather than dismissed as the inevitable price of maintaining order?The need for a humanitarian approachIndia’s younger generation is increasingly asserting itself in public life, demanding accountability and resisting attempts to narrow the democratic space. That energy offers a glimmer of hope. But genuine solidarity will be measured by whether the concerns of Kashmiris are included in this larger struggle for dignity, justice and constitutional freedoms.Atal Bihari Vajpayee understood the importance of approaching Kashmir through a humanitarian lens. His government pursued reconciliation and dialogue, recognising that political problems cannot be resolved through brute force or coercion. His famous formulation of Insaniyat, Jamhooriyat aur Kashmiriyat offered a framework that went beyond the narrow language of territorial claims and security.That humanitarian approach is needed today more urgently than ever.India must honour the secular, democratic and pluralistic ideals that gave Kashmir’s accession its wider meaning. Territorial integration may be asserted through constitutional and administrative measures, but emotional integration requires trust, respect and justice.October 26 should therefore be more than a commemorative holiday. If Kashmir’s accession is invoked as a defining moment in the story of India, the promise associated with it must also be taken seriously.A truly secular India must ensure that being Kashmiri or Muslim is never a reason for suspicion, that citizenship is never conditional on silence and that belonging is measured not by submission but by equality, justice and mutual respect.The real test of India’s commitment to Kashmir lies not in how forcefully it asserts that the region belongs to the country, but in how convincingly it demonstrates to the people of Kashmir that they belong to India and India belongs to them.Mehbooba Mufti is a former chief minister of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.