State in Historical Perspective: State and Society
(Jammu & Kashmir)
The relationship between state and society in Jammu and Kashmir has evolved through a complex historical trajectory shaped by geography, culture, political authority, and external interventions. Unlike many other regions in India, the idea of the state in Jammu and Kashmir cannot be understood merely as a constitutional or administrative structure; it must be examined as a historically produced relationship of power, legitimacy, and social negotiation.
From pre-modern kingship to princely rule and eventually to a contested constitutional democracy, the state in Jammu and Kashmir has remained deeply entangled with society—sometimes as a protector, at other times as a coercive authority. This historical evolution is central to understanding contemporary political conflict, questions of legitimacy, and ethnic tensions in the region.
Understanding State and Society: A Conceptual Frame
In political theory, the state refers to an organized political authority exercising sovereignty over a defined territory, while society encompasses social groups, cultural identities, economic relations, and everyday life. The relationship between the two is never static. It is shaped by:
- Forms of political authority
- Social hierarchies and identities
- Economic structures
- Sources of legitimacy and consent
In Jammu and Kashmir, this relationship has historically been marked by distance and discontinuity, rather than organic integration. The state was often experienced by society as an external or imposed authority rather than as a representative institution rooted in popular will.
Pre-Modern Period: Kingship and Social Order
In the pre-modern era, political authority in Kashmir was organized around monarchical rule, where sovereignty rested with kings whose legitimacy was often derived from religious sanction, lineage, and military control. The state functioned less as an impersonal institution and more as the personal authority of the ruler.
Society during this period was structured around:
- Agrarian relations
- Religious communities
- Local elites and intermediaries
The masses had little participation in governance. The relationship between state and society was hierarchical, with limited scope for consent or political representation. Political authority was distant, and resistance was episodic rather than institutionalized.
Dogra Rule: The Colonial-Princely State (1846–1947)
A decisive transformation occurred with the establishment of Dogra rule following the Treaty of Amritsar (1846). Under the Dogras, Jammu and Kashmir emerged as a princely state, combining pre-modern monarchy with colonial administrative practices.
The Dogra state was characterized by:
- Centralized authority
- Heavy taxation and land revenue extraction
- Limited political rights for the population
- Religious and regional asymmetries
For large sections of Kashmiri society, particularly the Muslim peasantry, the state came to be seen as extractive and alien. Social grievances related to land, labor, and political exclusion deepened the divide between state and society.
This period witnessed the gradual emergence of political consciousness, as social discontent began to take organized forms, laying the foundation for later mass mobilization.
Emergence of Political Society and Mass Mobilization
The early twentieth century marked a significant shift in the relationship between state and society. Education, print culture, and socio-religious reform movements contributed to the rise of political society.
Key developments included:
- Articulation of grievances against autocratic rule
- Demands for civil rights and representative institutions
- Mobilization across class and community lines
The state was increasingly challenged not just as a ruler, but as a political authority lacking legitimacy. Society began to assert itself as a political actor, demanding participation, rights, and accountability.
This transformation marked the transition from subjects to political claimants, fundamentally altering the nature of state–society relations.
Transition to Post-1947 Statehood
The events of 1947 represented a rupture in the historical evolution of the state. Accession to India and the subsequent political arrangements redefined the nature of sovereignty and governance in Jammu and Kashmir.
The post-1947 state was envisioned as:
- A constitutional entity
- Based on popular consent
- Linked to democratic institutions
However, the legacy of princely rule, unresolved political aspirations, and regional diversities meant that the state–society relationship remained fragile. While new institutions promised representation, many sections of society perceived the state as constrained by external control.
State, Identity, and Society
Unlike many regions where the state emerged as a neutral administrative authority, in Jammu and Kashmir it became closely associated with identity politics. Language, religion, and regional affiliations shaped how society related to the state.
The idea of the state was not merely political but deeply symbolic, linked to:
- Autonomy
- Cultural distinctiveness
- Historical memory
As a result, society’s expectations from the state were exceptionally high, and failures of governance translated quickly into crises of legitimacy.
Legitimacy and the Problem of Consent
A recurring theme in the historical relationship between state and society in Jammu and Kashmir has been the problem of legitimacy. Political authority was frequently questioned due to:
- Limited participation
- Disrupted democratic processes
- Perceived erosion of autonomy
When legitimacy weakened, society expressed dissent through protests, movements, and eventually, conflict. This historical pattern explains why governance crises in the region often escalated into broader political confrontations.
State as a Site of Contestation
Over time, the state in Jammu and Kashmir ceased to be viewed merely as a governing institution and became a contested site—a space where competing visions of identity, sovereignty, and belonging clashed.
For society, the state symbolized:
- Hope for self-rule and dignity
- Disappointment due to unmet promises
- A mechanism of control and surveillance
This ambivalent perception is rooted in the historical evolution of state–society relations.
Conclusion
The historical relationship between state and society in Jammu and Kashmir reveals a pattern of distance, contestation, and fragile legitimacy. From pre-modern kingship to princely autocracy and post-1947 constitutional arrangements, the state has rarely enjoyed unchallenged consent.
Understanding this historical trajectory is essential for explaining contemporary ethnic conflict, political alienation, and demands for autonomy. The state in Jammu and Kashmir is not merely an administrative structure; it is a historically shaped political experience, continuously negotiated, resisted, and reimagined by society.
The enduring challenge has been to transform the state from an authority perceived as imposed into one that is embedded in social consent, democratic participation, and historical justice.
References
- Bose, Sumantra. Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace
- Zutshi, Chitralekha. Languages of Belonging: Islam, Regional Identity, and the Making of Kashmir
- Rai, Mridu. Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects
- Schofield, Victoria. Kashmir in Conflict
