A Credible Model for the Return of Kashmiri Pandits
K K Khosa
krishenkhosa@gmail.com
Three decades after displacement, the return of Kashmiri Pandits demands not symbolism, but justice, security, and a structured, state-backed policy anchored in restitution and reconciliation.
The question confronting Kashmiri Pandits today is not merely emotional or historical. It is strategic and moral: can a community that has survived ethnic cleansing return home with dignity, security, and permanence? The answer is yes-but only if return is anchored in justice, protected by the state, and preceded by the creation of a genuinely conducive environment.
More than three decades after the ethnic cleansing of 1989-90, Kashmiri Pandits remain battle-hardened by memory, resilience, and exile, yet irrevocably homebound by an unresolved past. What obstructs return is not nostalgia or fear alone, but the persistent absence of accountability, restitution, and trust. History shows that displaced communities do not return merely when violence subsides; they return when impunity ends and confidence is restored.
The war against terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir has achieved undeniable tactical successes. Yet terrorism has not disappeared-it has evolved. In the 1980s, radicalization was pursued as a long-term strategy through mosques, madrasas, shrines, and educational spaces, drawing ideological inspiration from sources outside the Valley, including institutions such as Darul Uloom Deoband. Sufi traditions were infiltrated, separatist narratives normalized, and political patronage allowed extremism to metastasize. The Frankenstein later turned inward, but minorities-especially Kashmiri Pandits-were its first victims.
The persecution of Kashmiri Pandits did not erupt overnight in 1989-90. It followed decades of systematic marginalization. Land reforms that transferred nearly 20 lakh acres without compensation-irrespective of their stated egalitarian intent-fell disproportionately on minorities, raising legitimate doubts about the ideological motivations of the state. Statements branding Pandits as “fifth columnists” by Sheikh Abdullah-despite his earlier advocacy of Hindu-Muslim-Sikh ittehaad and his role in defending Kashmiris of all faiths during the turmoil of 1947-were particularly disturbing.
This, combined with the myth that Kashmiri Pandits had monopolized government employment-a narrative still amplified in sections of the media-created a moral alibi for exclusion and later violence. When the final blow came in 1989-90, the community was abandoned-by the state government and by New Delhi alike. Political leaders, including Dr. Farooq Abdullah, cannot escape responsibility for this collapse of constitutional duty.
Return, therefore, cannot be reduced to a slogan. It must follow a structured, state-backed resettlement model, not symbolic gestures or individual acts of courage. The process must be phased, legally guaranteed, and institutionally overseen. The primary requirement is the creation of protected, integrated habitation zones across multiple districts of the Valley. These are not ghettos, but planned townships with permanent security architecture-not temporary bunkers. Civil administration, schools, healthcare facilities, community spaces, and connectivity to markets and employment centres are indispensable. Security must be layered-physical, technological, and institutional-and involve local policing supported by central forces until normalcy is demonstrably stable.
Equally central to return is property justice. A comprehensive audit of Pandit-owned properties-homes, agricultural land, orchards, temples, and commercial assets-must be undertaken. Illegal occupations, fraudulent mutations, and encroachments must be prosecuted through fast-track courts. The success of the 2025 EOW crackdown on economic crimes in Kashmir demonstrates that institutional will can restore public confidence. A similarly focused drive is urgently required for properties belonging to displaced Kashmiri Pandits. Where restitution is not feasible, fair compensation indexed to present market value must be provided. Justice delayed here would translate into renewed alienation. International precedent strengthens this case further. Recently, Algeria legislated to criminalize its colonization by France and has sought reparations for decades of exploitation and dispossession. While historical contexts differ, the underlying principle is universal: when a community is dispossessed of property and denied legal protection due to violence or state failure, the obligation of restitution and compensation does not lapse with time. Kashmiri Pandits lost homes, land, temples, and commercial assets after 1989- 90 while living in enforced exile, unable to safeguard their property or pursue remedies. Compensation in such cases is not a political favour, but an act of restorative justice- essential to the credibility of any sustainable return process. Economic anchoring must form the bedrock of return. Resettlement cannot be sustained without livelihoods. The model must include reserved government employment for returnees, incentives for private enterprise, and opportunities in professional services. Special economic zones for local entrepreneurship should be earmarked, along with support for traditional crafts, education, and knowledge-based work. Economic dignity is the strongest antidote to fear, fostering a durable sense of security. Once this sense of security crystallizes, cultural and civilizational restoration will follow naturally.
The destruction of temples, shrines, and cultural institutions was not incidental-it was symbolic. Their restoration must therefore be state-supported and legally protected. Language, rituals, festivals, and heritage are not luxuries; they are anchors of belonging. The restoration work undertaken by the Union Territory administration across several temples and shrines of historical importance deserves acknowledgement, but much more remains to be done to rebuild cultural confidence.
Even the most robust resettlement model will fail without confidence-building measures that address psychological and social realities. First, there must be formal recognition of the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits. Without naming the crime, reconciliation remains rhetorical. Second, the Government of India should establish a Truth, Justice, and Reparations Commission to document crimes, institutional failures, and losses-not to reopen wounds, but to close them with truth. Third, consistent public messaging is essential. Political leaders, civil society, and religious institutions in Kashmir must unequivocally reject past justifications of violence and discrimination. Silence or ambiguity will sabotage return more effectively than terrorism. Educational curricula and public discourse must also correct historical distortions about Kashmir’s plural past, including the contributions of minorities. Archaeological discoveries of ancient Buddhist relics-highlighted by the Prime Minister in Man Ki Baat-should be foregrounded to counter narratives that erase Kashmir’s layered civilizational history.
The Omar Abdullah government carries a historic responsibility to rectify the wrongs of the past. The leadership of the National Conference has an opportunity to redeem lost credibility by restoring the Valley’s syncretic ethos. The UT government must immediately initiate a comprehensive return and rehabilitation policy to resettle the beleaguered Kashmiri Pandit community with full security, dignity, and honour-ensuring zero risk of refoulement into exile.
Such a policy will require substantial financial commitment. This responsibility must be borne by the Government of India under the leadership of Narendra Modi, after arriving at a broad consensus and taking the displaced community fully into confidence. For Jammu and Kashmir to reclaim its plural ethos and constitutional promise, the dignified return of Kashmiri Pandits must move from political rhetoric to administrative resolve.
(The author is President Kashmiri Pandit Sabha Ambphalla, Jammu)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
