On Authority, Care and Security in Kashmir
By: Mohd Arsalan Bhat (Research Scholar)
In the layered and often contested political discourse of Kashmir, the sight of Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha walking from the Tourist Reception Centre (TRC) to Lal Chowk alongside ordinary citizens acquires a significance that exceeds the immediate event. It is not merely a march against drug abuse, nor simply an administrative initiative packaged as public outreach. It is, more profoundly, an attempt to re-script the relationship between authority and society in a region where that relationship has historically oscillated between distance and distrust. To understand what this moment means, particularly for those entangled in the crisis of drug abuse, and for the broader architecture of security in Jammu and Kashmir- one must situate it within a larger inquiry into how states perform care, how societies respond to vulnerability, and how the boundaries between human security and national security are negotiated in practice.
At the most immediate level, the padyatra constitutes a visible acknowledgment of a crisis that has, for years, unfolded in the quieter corners of Kashmiri society. Drug abuse in the Valley is not an abstract policy concern; it is a lived reality that cuts across class, geography, and age. Families have watched their children drift into addiction; communities have struggled with the erosion of social cohesion; institutions have grappled with the limits of their capacity to respond. In such a context, the act of the highest administrative authority walking through the heart of the city, publicly naming the problem, and inviting collective participation in addressing it, carries a certain moral weight. It signals that the issue has moved from the margins to the centre of public discourse, that it is no longer something to be whispered about but something to be confronted collectively.
For the ordinary Kashmiri who is involved in or affected by drug abuse, this moment can be read as a form of recognition, an acknowledgment that their struggle is neither invisible nor insignificant. Recognition, in political theory, is not a trivial matter; it shapes how individuals understand their place within the social and political order. When the state recognizes a problem, it implicitly recognizes the individuals associated with it as subjects worthy of attention and intervention. In the context of addiction, this has important implications. It
opens up the possibility of shifting from a paradigm of stigma and exclusion to one of care and rehabilitation. The addict is no longer merely a figure of deviance to be disciplined but a citizen whose well-being is integral to the health of the community.
Yet recognition alone is insufficient. The deeper question is whether such public gestures translate into substantive changes in policy and practice. Here, the padyatra must be understood not as an endpoint but as a beginning, a moment that creates the conditions for more sustained engagement. By mobilizing large numbers of people, including students, civil society actors, and government officials, the march seeks to generate a sense of collective ownership over the problem. This is crucial because the crisis of drug abuse cannot be addressed by the state alone. It requires the participation of families, communities, educational institutions, and healthcare providers. The padyatra, in this sense, operates as a catalyst, bringing together disparate actors and aligning them around a shared objective.
The symbolism of the route- from TRC to Lal Chowk, is particularly instructive. Lal Chowk is not just a geographical location; it is a site laden with political meaning. It has been, at different moments, a space of contestation, assertion, and visibility. To walk towards Lal Chowk is, in a sense, to move towards the centre of Kashmiri public life, to occupy a space that has historically been associated with the articulation of political claims. When the Lieutenant Governor walks this route with ordinary citizens, the act performs a certain democratization of space. It suggests that the centre of political life is not the preserve of elites or institutions alone but a shared domain where the state and society can encounter each other more directly.
This encounter, however, is not merely spatial; it is also relational. The act of walking together reduces, at least symbolically, the distance between authority and citizenry. In contexts marked by hierarchical governance structures, such gestures can have a significant impact on perceptions of legitimacy. Legitimacy, after all, is not derived solely from legal or institutional authority; it is also shaped by the extent to which the state is perceived as responsive and engaged. By stepping out of formal settings and into the public domain, the Lieutenant Governor signals a willingness to engage with society on terms that are less mediated and more immediate. This does not dissolve structural asymmetries of power, but it can soften their edges, creating space for a more dialogic form of governance.
The implications of this shift become even more pronounced when one considers the relationship between the crisis of drug abuse and the broader question of security in Jammu and Kashmir. Traditionally, security in the region has been understood in narrow, state-centric terms, focused on the management of violence and the preservation of territorial integrity. While these concerns remain important, they do not exhaust the concept of security. The rise of drug abuse points to a different kind of vulnerability- one that is social, economic, and psychological. It reveals the limits of a security paradigm that prioritizes control over care, and it underscores the need for a more expansive understanding of what it means to secure a society.
Human security, as a conceptual framework, offers a useful lens in this regard. It shifts the focus from the state to the individual, emphasizing the protection of basic needs and the enhancement of human capabilities. In the context of Kashmir, this means addressing issues such as unemployment, mental health, education, and social integration, all of which are implicated in the dynamics of drug abuse. The padyatra, by foregrounding addiction as a collective concern, implicitly acknowledges the importance of these dimensions. It suggests that security cannot be achieved through coercive measures alone; it must be underwritten by the well-being of individuals and communities.
At the same time, the relationship between human security and national security is not one of substitution but of complementarity. A society that is weakened by addiction, social fragmentation, and economic despair is inherently less stable and more susceptible to various forms of disruption. Drug networks, for instance, are often embedded in broader circuits of illicit activity, including organized crime and, in some cases, cross-border dynamics that have implications for national security. By addressing the demand side of the drug problem- through awareness, rehabilitation, and social support, the state can contribute to dismantling these networks and enhancing overall stability.
The padyatra, therefore, can be seen as part of an emerging synthesis between these two dimensions of security. It represents an attempt to integrate the language of care into the practice of governance, to recognize that the protection of the nation is inseparable from the protection of its people. This is a significant shift, particularly in a region where the state has often been perceived primarily as an agent of control. By engaging with a social issue in a visible and participatory manner, the state has the opportunity to reframe its role, presenting itself not only as a guarantor of order but also as a facilitator of well-being.
However, the success of this reorientation will depend on its institutionalization. Symbolic gestures, while important, must be accompanied by concrete measures. The challenge lies in translating the momentum generated by the padyatra into sustained policy interventions. This includes expanding rehabilitation facilities, strengthening mental health services, enhancing educational outreach, and creating economic opportunities for youth. It also requires building partnerships with civil society organizations, which often have deeper reach and greater credibility within communities.
In this regard, the padyatra can be understood as a form of political signaling, a declaration of intent that must be followed by action. It signals that the state recognizes the gravity of the drug crisis and is willing to mobilize resources and attention to address it. It also signals a willingness to engage with society in a more open and participatory manner. Whether these signals translate into substantive change will depend on the consistency and coherence of subsequent efforts.
There is also a broader philosophical dimension to this moment. The act of walking- of moving through the city at a human pace, in the company of others, has a certain egalitarian quality. It contrasts with the usual modes of political movement, which are often characterized by speed, distance, and insulation. Walking exposes the leader to the same
environment as the citizen; it creates a shared experience that, however briefly, blurs the lines between ruler and ruled. In this sense, the padyatra can be seen as an attempt to re-humanize politics, to bring it closer to the lived realities of people.
This re-humanization is particularly important in a context like Kashmir, where political discourse has often been dominated by abstractions- security, sovereignty, development, while the everyday experiences of individuals have received less attention. By focusing on a concrete social issue and engaging with it in a visible and participatory manner, the padyatra helps to re-anchor politics in the domain of lived experience. It reminds us that governance is not only about managing macro-level concerns but also about addressing the micro-level realities that shape people’s lives.
For the individual struggling with addiction, this re-anchoring can be meaningful. It suggests that their experience is not peripheral but central to the concerns of the state and society. It offers the possibility of being seen not as a problem to be managed but as a person to be supported. This shift in perspective is essential for effective intervention, as it creates the conditions for trust and cooperation. Without trust, even the most well-designed policies are likely to falter.
At the same time, it is important to maintain a sense of realism. The challenges associated with drug abuse are complex and deeply rooted. They cannot be resolved through a single initiative or a short-term campaign. They require sustained effort, coordination across multiple sectors, and a willingness to adapt to changing circumstances. The padyatra, in this sense, should be seen as one step in a longer journey, a journey that will require persistence, patience, and a commitment to learning.
Finally, the padyatra led by the Lieutenant Governor in Srinagar represents a moment of potential transformation in the way governance engages with society in Jammu and Kashmir. It brings to the fore the importance of addressing social vulnerabilities as part of a broader security framework, and it highlights the interdependence of human and national security. By walking from TRC to Lal Chowk with ordinary citizens, the Lieutenant Governor performs a gesture of proximity and engagement that carries both symbolic and practical significance. It signals a willingness to move beyond traditional modes of governance and to embrace a more participatory and humane approach.
The true measure of this moment, however, will lie in what follows. If the energy and attention generated by the padyatra are harnessed to drive sustained policy interventions, it could mark the beginning of a more integrated and responsive approach to governance in Kashmir. If not, it risks being remembered as a well-intentioned but ultimately ephemeral gesture. The task, therefore, is to ensure that the walk does not end at Lal Chowk, but continues in the form of concrete actions that address the underlying causes of the crisis and build a more secure and resilient society.
About the Author
