The power of rhetoric lies not merely in its ability to persuade but in its capacity to distort reality, creating a narrative that serves the interests of the powerful while silencing the oppressed. India’s discourse on the Kashmir conflict, particularly post-9/11, is rife with logical fallacies designed to manipulate domestic and international public opinion, obscuring the legitimate grievances and aspirations of the Kashmiri people. Michel Foucault, a French philosopher known for his critical studies of Power, Knowledge, and discourse, observed in “The Order of Discourse,” discourse is not merely a tool of domination but the very battleground where power is contested. India’s rhetoric exemplifies this struggle, employing fallacious reasoning to redefine the Kashmir conflict on its terms and imposing a narrative that serves the interests of the state while disempowering the people of Kashmir.
Bandwagon Fallacy: The Terrorism Mantra Post-9/11
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, global discourse underwent a seismic shift, conflating terrorism with Islam and securitizing political struggles. India capitalized on this environment by equating the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination with religious extremism. This alignment with the post-9/11 global anti-terrorism narrative constitutes a bandwagon fallacy, where India’s rhetoric frames the Kashmiri movement as an extension of global jihad, thereby delegitimizing it.
Historically, this pattern mirrors Cold War-era tactics where liberation movements were dismissed as Communist insurgencies to align with anti-Communist agendas. Similarly, apartheid South Africa labeled anti-apartheid activists as Marxist revolutionaries. India’s strategy echoes these precedents, framing the Kashmir issue as a counter-terrorism challenge. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statements often reinforce this perspective, describing the conflict as a “battle against terrorism” and defense Minister Rajnath singh portraying measures like the “abrogation of Article 370” as counter-terrorism efforts.
This reductive framing normalizes systemic violence under the guise of national security, exemplifying what Hannah Arendt termed the banality of evil. By embedding the Kashmir conflict within the broader “war on terror,” India diverts attention from its militarization of the region, erosion of political autonomy, and human rights abuses.
Straw Man Fallacy: Ignoring Human Rights Violations
A strawman fallacy occurs when an argument is deliberately misrepresented or oversimplified, making it easier to refute. India often employs this tactic to mischaracterize the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination. At its core, this movement is a demand for the implementation of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions that call for a plebiscite, allowing Kashmiris to determine their political future. However, the Indian state distorts this legitimate aspiration by labeling it a terrorist movement, diverting attention from the root causes of the conflict and the grievances of the Kashmiri people. This misrepresentation gains traction due to the violent turn some segments of the movement have taken—violence that is often a desperate response to the unrelenting suppression and lack of meaningful redress. India uses this as a pretext to vilify the entire struggle, ignoring its foundational demand for self-determination.
Red Herring Fallacy: Diverting Attention from Real Issues
To reinforce its narrative on Jammu and Kashmir, India often employs the red herring fallacy—a rhetorical tactic aimed at diverting attention from the region’s core issues. Instead of addressing systemic injustices such as the denial of basic rights, the imposition of draconian laws, the exploitation of natural resources, and the stripping of statehood and autonomy, India shifts focus to external factors, particularly Pakistan.
The use of red herrings to deflect criticism aligns with Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent theory, which outlines how states manipulate narratives to maintain control and obscure systemic oppression. By framing the Kashmiri conflict as a product of cross-border terrorism rather than a struggle for self-determination, India reduces a complex socio-political issue to a mere security challenge.
Historically, such diversionary tactics have been employed to delegitimize indigenous movements. For example, during the Algerian War of Independence, French authorities emphasized the threat of “external Communist influences” to justify their repression, deflecting attention from demands for decolonization. Similarly, in Kashmir, the Indian government has repeatedly cited “external threats” to justify measures like the abrogation of Article 370 and the region’s militarization. Prime Minister Modi’s statement during an all-party meeting—“The time has come for Pakistan to answer the world on atrocities against people in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir”—is emblematic of this approach.
Defense Minister Rajnath Singh’s recurring emphasis on combating terrorism in Kashmir reflects securitization theory as described by Ole Wæver, which explains how states frame issues as existential threats to justify extraordinary measures. This narrative not only shifts attention from the genuine grievances of the Kashmiri people—such as the erosion of their political autonomy and violations of fundamental rights—but also transforms their struggle into a security concern, thereby delegitimizing their claims for justice.
Moreover, the red herring fallacy aligns with what Johan Galtung describes as “structural violence,” wherein institutional arrangements suppress marginalized voices by framing their legitimate demands as threats to national stability. By focusing on external actors, India masks the internal dynamics of alienation and disenfranchisement in Jammu and Kashmir, allowing the state to maintain its control while eroding the region’s historical identity and political autonomy.
These diversionary tactics not only obscure the region’s real issues but also perpetuate a narrative that undermines the Kashmiri people’s legitimate struggle for self-determination, reducing it to a narrowly defined security problem. As history and theory show, such strategies are effective in silencing dissent but fail to address the root causes of conflict, thereby exacerbating tensions in the long run.
Appeal to Fear: Exploiting Islamophobia for Political Gain
The appeal to fear, or argumentum ad metum, is another cornerstone of India’s rhetoric on Kashmir. By stoking fears of Islamic extremism, the BJP has tapped into existing Islamophobia to justify harsh measures in the region and galvanize political support. Narendra Modi frequently invokes the specter of “radical Islamic terrorism” in his speeches, linking it to the Kashmir conflict and framing it as a threat to Indian society. The exploitation of fear serves to marginalize Kashmiri voices and sustain a narrative of control. It also brings political dividends for BJP’s saffronisation of India mission.
Ad Hominem Fallacy: The Bashing of Pakistan
In its discourse on Kashmir, India also frequently employs the ad hominem fallacy, a rhetorical strategy in which the focus shifts from addressing an argument to attacking the person or entity presenting it. Pakistan, as a vocal advocate for the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination, becomes the primary target of this tactic. Instead of engaging with the legitimate demands for autonomy and human rights raised by the Kashmiri people, India redirects the discourse by blaming Pakistan for all unrest in the region. This reframing allows India to sidestep scrutiny of its own policies in Jammu and Kashmir while delegitimizing Pakistan’s support for the Kashmiri cause.
A recurrent ploy involves pointing fingers at Pakistan’s Baluchistan province in an attempt to draw a false equivalence between the two regions. However, this argument is fundamentally flawed and lacks credibility on multiple grounds. Firstly, Jammu and Kashmir is recognized as a disputed territory under United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions, which explicitly call for a plebiscite to determine the region’s political future. In contrast, Baluchistan is an integral part of Pakistan, with no international recognition as a disputed territory. Secondly, the security and governance dynamics of the two regions are starkly different. Jammu and Kashmir has been described as one of the most militarized zones in the world, with an estimated soldier-to-civilian ratio of 1:9, reflecting the pervasive presence of Indian armed forces and the resultant suppression of civilian life. On the other hand, while Baluchistan has faced security challenges in the past, it is now witnessing substantial development, particularly through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), positioning it as a gateway to global trade and regional lynch pin. By juxtaposing the two regions, India not only attempts to undermine Pakistan’s legitimate advocacy for the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination but also deflects international scrutiny of its own policies in Kashmir. This tactic, rooted in a false analogy, serves as a smokescreen to obscure the distinct and well-documented plight of the Kashmiri people, who continue to endure systemic violations of their rights under Indian occupation.
By targeting Pakistan, India not only avoids addressing the genuine grievances of the Kashmiri people but also evades international criticism of its actions in Jammu and Kashmir. Surveillance, crackdowns on journalists, enforced disappearances, the use of repressive laws, and other human rights violations are ignored in favor of vilifying Pakistan. This ad hominem approach shifts the discourse away from addressing the legitimate concerns of the Kashmiri people and perpetuates the status quo of denial and suppression.
Hasty Generalization Fallacy: Oversimplifying the Kashmir Conflict
India’s rhetoric also relies on hasty generalizations, drawing broad conclusions from isolated incidents of violence or extremist rhetoric. By portraying the entire Kashmiri movement as driven by Pakistan’s interference, India ignores the diverse and multifaceted nature of the resistance in Jammu and Kashmir, which encompasses a range of political, social, and cultural expressions.
India’s discourse on Kashmir, when deconstructed, reveals a series of logical fallacies that serve to obscure the truth and perpetuate a narrative of control. By examining these fallacies we can better understand how rhetoric is used to suppress dissent and maintain power. The Kashmir conflict, far from being a simple issue of terrorism, is a deeply rooted struggle for self-determination, justice, and human rights. As Immanuel Kant once remarked, “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.” Recognizing and challenging these fallacies is essential for untangling the web of deceit and working towards a more just and peaceful resolution in Kashmir.
Author
Abdul Rehman, Research Officer at Center for International Strategic Studies AJK.
