Recent innocent civilian killings in Kashmir have a deeper message. The requisite follow through by security forces and intelligence agencies, threadbare analysis by elites and the rhetoric in the discursive terrain have mapped the future feasibilities in Kashmir ranging from Afghanistan like Talibanization to slipping of situation back to levels as obtained in 1990s which in other words is captured in the phrase ‘ethnic cleansing’. Some experts have also correlated these incidents with legislations passed by the parliament on 05 August 2019. However, to draw such extreme conclusions is not only a hasty generalization of events but also has an inherent risk of evolving faulty post hoc strategies and policy frameworks. These incidents are shear outliers when seen in the statistical frame of events of past two years or so. But they are hard hitting real time data points and need to be investigated very profoundly. It is not only in these propositions but in the gaps existing in these explanadums where the understanding of causes, consequences and the claims with respect to such incidents actually lie. Connecting the dots, exploring the hiatus and unprejudiced fulfilling of cleavages in the comprehension of Kashmir conundrum, one thing that is striking is the back and forth yoyo of militancy in Kashmir. The crests and troughs of Kashmiri militancy have been repetitive and recurring highlighting the missed opportunities for conflict resolution and avoidable losses incurred at the relapse periods. The frequent repetitive crests of violence indicate that premises based on which current policies, programmes and strategies are designed need a definitive review. The phenomenon is not withering away and hence a paradigm shift in its theory and epistemology is warranted.

Present model of transformation may be inadequate when perceived from ethnocentric lenses. In the trilogy of state, market and society the time has come to let the society be the driver of social change as both state and market have had their fair share of being prime movers in this journey. It is further significant to empathize that people have been the constants in this conflagration while both micro and macro actors representing state and market have been changing. People are also sandwiched between the barrels of militants and the security forces. As per political theory propounded by Aristotle, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is not the best way of administering remedial justice. For militancy to wane away, social space and social capital are the counter balancing forces. People may be compelled to side the militants at the gun point. Jurisprudence needs to factor this predicament. For milkitancyto thrive four conditions are necessary; firstly, cross border terror tap should keep flowing, secondly, weapons and war like stores (WLS) should be available for individuals to pick up the gun, thirdly, picking up of gun should be a rational choice for these individuals and lastly, society should support this social cause. In these necessary conditions of militancy persistence, probably first two are absolute vital and that is where the game changing solutions lie. Availability of weapons and war like stores needs to be removed from the militancy space. If guns and war like stores are removed, the choice of becoming a terrorist is willy nilly eliminated. It is this availability that is more dangerous than the man behind the weapon. The strategic focus has to be more to dry up Kashmir’s militancy space by ensuring non availability of weapons and war like stores besides stopping the terror tap from across the border. The latter needs hermetically sealed line of control to deliver zero infiltration. Zero infiltration is neither impractical nor utopian. It is highly possible. The strategic strivings have to be thus issue based and not individual based. Of course , foreign militants are not being referred to here. If availability of drug is the necessary condition for drug addiction, availability of weapon is the must condition for pathological virus of militancy. It is also true that there are willing supporters, over ground workers and anti national elements prevalent in Kashmir, but it is not false that every person in the valley is involved in supporting the terror outfits. Hence, people who are not on side of terror need to be incentivized and such locations need different treatment. One size does not fit all. A tit for tat strategy even for inimical elements is unlikely to ensure resurrection, reconstruction and return of peace in these areas. Retributive justice based on punitive mindsets may not work. Social jurisprudence also emphasizes that the working of laws in society is more important than the nature and process of these laws. As per Max Weber in Interpretive Sociology, meaning and motives are constructed in the minds of people. It is their interpretation and perception which shapes the further action and behavior of people. Best of policy initiatives may fall flat if they are not socially welcomed and embraced. May be the bottom line, therefore, is that hard line approach needs an alternate perspective. Numerous mass movements have highlighted that ultimate power lies with the people. It is also a sound premise that people are rational and social animals.
The underlying motive of militants in innocent killings, as always, is to project the state failure. They achieve it by attacking the state’s both vulnerable (innocent unarmed civilians) and strong points (security forces). They attack these points as symbol of state. State has to thus retreat to backburner, may be anonymous and silent strategist rather than main actor in this game play so that one on one transposition may be avoided. The bugling of victory before its attainment may also be an inadvertent aggressive action. In any case, within one’s own country, there are no victories or defeats instead there are restoration of normalcy and prevention of lapses. Let us not forget victory has encased notion of defeat for the other actor which has an element of vengeance, revenge and retaliation. Speech Acts also have a major role to play here. Immediate steps need to be taken to restore social space, social life, public affairs and civil society. Let policy architects, therefore, neither talk to sponsors of terror nor to those powerful actors who have had the opportunity to extricate these people from violence but failed, and instead talk to and more importantly listen to own people empathetically. Mobile technology, web based analytical tools and advent of AI can play a significant role in mapping the sentiments and pulse of people in Kashmir. Let people decide and drive the transformation with state and market being in the support role. May be there is a need first to navigate Kashmir to pre-militancy days and then build a new Kashmir. In sum, it is the tension between militancy abetted by its sponsor and the developmental process abetted by the state. State will prevail, but costs need to be minimized.