The colonial legacy of structural centralization persists in developing nations that were once European colonies. Kashmir has been a contentious issue between the two nuclear-armed neighbors, Pakistan and India, since their inception; however, the origins of this conflict can be traced back to colonial times as part of the Crown’s divide-and-rule policy. This paper navigates the major structural dividends: political, economic, security, and demographic, generated during colonial times that the postcolonial states continue to exploit after independence, and more recently, following the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A from the Indian Constitution.

It further examines the consequences of these structural dividends in the form of injustice and human rights violations through the lenses of Rawlsian justice analysis and Ignatieff’s human rights arguments, respectively. The major findings conclude that the present-day political and social tensions in Kashmir trace their origins to the structural patterns established during the British Raj, which continue to shape governance practices, human rights outcomes, and the social fabric of Kashmir.

The Kashmir conflict has been one of the most prolonged and complex issues in South Asia, shaping the geopolitical landscape, identities, and human rights conditions in the region since the inception of India and Pakistan. The roots of the conflict can be traced back to the colonial legacy of the British, which established corrosive institutional frameworks and unjust territorial arrangements that continue to influence Kashmir’s contemporary socioeconomic and political structure. The most influential treaty in this regard was the Treaty of Amritsar, 1846, which marked the beginning of the Dogra dynasty in Jammu and Kashmir under British suzerainty. This treaty established a political order that prioritized imperial interest over the democratic aspirations of locals (Kashmir Archive, 2024).

The Dogra rulers were Hindu elites governing a Muslim-majority population. Their centralized administrative structure, to serve colonial interests, marginalized the local population and concentrated power among Hindu feudal authorities. Thus, Muslims were structurally excluded from power sittings under the Dogra Raj (Bhat, 2019). The unjust territorial agreements and border demarcation by the British made Kashmir the bone of contention between them. Recently, in 2019, the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A further intensified political tension and violations of international human rights in the region (Ali & Mustafa, 2021).

This paper investigates how the colonial legacy of political centralization and the institutional framework generated the structures that were weaponized by the post-colonial states against the right of self-determination of Kashmiris. This paper considers the political, economic, security, and demographic structures that emerged from the colonial setup and their consequences on contemporary conflict. It also examines structural injustice, human rights violations, and the fragmentation of social identities through the lenses of Rawls’s theory of justice and Ignatieff’s critique of human rights politics.

The central research question of this study is to what extent colonial structural arrangements shaped the contemporary situation of injustice, human rights violations, and social fragmentation in Kashmir. It further explores the key political, administrative, and security structures established by the British, as well as the purposes for which they were created. Moreover, it examines how the postcolonial government adopted these structures after partition.

Colonial Centralization Structures and Formulation of the Kashmir Issue

The history of the Kashmir issue is deeply rooted in the tactics adopted by the British to establish and sustain their rule in the subcontinent. The governance of Jammu and Kashmir given to Gulab Singh, a Dogra ruler, by the British East India Company under the Treaty of Amritsar, 1846 (Kashmir Archive, 2024), demonstrates the implementation of the Crown’s “divide and rule” policy because the major portion of Kashmir’s population was comprised of Muslims. The British adopted a centralized political order by aligning with the Dogras to control the frontier regions (Kreutzmann, 2008).

The political and administrative orders were hierarchical, which favored loyalty to the ruler rather than service to the state’s people. The administrative position and land rights were granted to elites who aligned themselves with the aspirations of the external authorities, and a significant segment of the Muslim population remained excluded from government participation (Bhat, 2019). Schofield noted that Kashmiri Muslims viewed the Dogras as treating the region as “a conquered territory,” and governance was given to the nobles loyal to the external authorities (Schofield, 2003, p. 5). The British introduced a classified system of revenue collection, judicial rulings, and bureaucratic administration, entrenched with centralized authority that restricted the development of a local autonomous system (Rai, 2004, pp. 18-79).

Another tactic used by the British was the reshaping of identities through the census and bordering. Jammu and Kashmir were two separate regions that were brought under a single dynasty. Kashmir is a valley comprised of a Muslim majority population, and Jammu lies in the south of Kashmir, a hilly region with a Hindu-majority population. Many scholars argue that the unification of these two geographical regions occurred to create a religious demographic mismatch (Schofield, 2003, pp. 49-55). 

The colonial legacy of mapping Kashmir’s political and demographic realities is more than establishing an administrative structure; it produces a foundation for the conflict that still exists between the two nuclear-armed states, India and Pakistan. The centralization of authority and classification of........

© Paradigm Shift