Broken-Windows Counterinsurgency: Militarization and Resistance in India-Administered Kashmir

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

MAIN ARGUMENT

Militarization, particularly through practices like stop and frisk, can be counterproductive to peace and security by increasing support for violent resistance and diminishing the perceived legitimacy of nonviolent alternatives. The case of Indian-administered Kashmir—one of the most densely militarized regions in the world—shows that sustained military presence and everyday encounters with armed forces can deepen alienation rather than pacify dissent. Original survey and interview data collected in Srinagar suggests that these interactions not only may fail to suppress defiance but may actively legitimize violence as a more effective strategy for resistance. Ultimately, there is evidence that militarization, instead of bringing stability, can perpetuate a cycle of repression and backlash, fueling the very unrest it aims to quell.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

• Excessive reliance on practices such as stop and frisk in contested regions can backfire; security forces should adopt community-based approaches that build trust rather than fuel resentment.
• Policies should promote political dialogue and nonmilitarized forms of conflict resolution, particularly with populations most affected by state repression.
• Programs that support education, employment, and civic participation among youth can serve as alternatives to radicalization and help de-escalate conflict over time.
• Achieving sustainable peace in Kashmir requires policy efforts that address actors whose entrenched interests hinder reform.

Yelena Biberman is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Skidmore College, a New Voice at the Andrew W. Marshall Foundation, and an Associate at Harvard University’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies (United States). She is the author of Gambling with Violence: State Outsourcing of War in Pakistan and India (2019).