Who Is a Kashmiri? Ethnicity, Statehood and the Evolution of a Shared Political Identity
A Response to Manzoor Gilani
By Dr Shabir Choudhry, London, 6 July 2026.
The recent article by Manzoor Gilani entitled What is Kashmir? Who are Kashmiris? deserves careful reading. At a time when political slogans often replace historical facts, he has made a valuable contribution by encouraging a serious discussion about identity, history and the evolution of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir.
I agree with many of the historical facts he presents. Before 1846, there was no political entity known as the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Various regions—including Jammu, Kashmir, Poonch, Mirpur, Muzaffarabad, Gilgit, Baltistan and Ladakh—possessed their own distinct histories, cultures and identities. These facts are beyond dispute.
However, I respectfully believe the discussion can be taken a step further. The central issue is not whether these regional identities existed—they certainly did. The real question is whether, over nearly two centuries, they also developed a shared political identity.
In my view, the answer is yes.
Four Different Meanings of "Kashmir"
Much of the confusion surrounding this debate arises because people use the word Kashmir without explaining which Kashmir they mean. In reality, the word has at least four distinct meanings.
First, Kashmir may refer to the Kashmir Valley, the geographical region stretching roughly from Baramulla to Anantnag.
Second, Kashmir may refer to ethnic Kashmiris—people whose ancestral origins lie in the Valley and whose traditional language is Kashmiri.
Third, Kashmir may refer to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the princely state established in 1846 under Maharaja Gulab Singh, which brought together diverse peoples under one political administration.
Fourth, Kashmir refers to the international dispute over the former princely State, recognised by the United Nations since 1948. This dispute concerns the entire State—not merely the Valley—including Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan and the territories administered by Pakistan.
Many disagreements arise simply because people move from one meaning of "Kashmir" to another without realising they have changed the subject.
Ethnicity Is Not the Same as Political Identity
One of the most common mistakes in discussions of identity is assuming that ethnicity and political identity are identical. They are not.
For example, a Scot may be ethnically Scottish and politically British.
Similarly, a person who lives in Bavaria could be called a Bavarian, that is, his distinct regional identity while being a German.
Also, a person belonging to Catalonia may speak Catalan and possess a strong cultural identity while remaining legally Spanish.
Likewise, a resident of Baltistan may be ethnically Balti, a resident of Poonch may be Poonchi. The point which most people do not understand is that none of these regional identities disappears merely because another political identity also exists. It must be understood that modern societies routinely accommodate multiple identities simultaneously.
The Birth of a Civic Identity
The creation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1846 did more than unite territories under one ruler. It gradually created a common political community.
This process accelerated through common institutions, common administration, common taxation, common courts and, most importantly, the State Subject Laws, culminating in the State Subject Notification of 1927.
For the first time, all permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, regardless of religion, language or ethnicity, possessed common legal rights and a common constitutional status.
In modern political science, this is known as civic nationalism, which differs fundamentally from ethnic nationalism.
Ethnic nationalism is based upon ancestry. But civic nationalism is based upon common citizenship, common institutions and shared political experience.
The former State of Jammu and Kashmir gradually developed precisely such a civic identity. In other words, one person could be a Mirpuri and have a regional identity, but he will be a Kashmiri as well; and for that he doesn’t have to speak the Kashmiri language.
International Law Recognises the Entire State
This distinction became even more important after 1947, when the United Nations did not recognise separate disputes over the Kashmir Valley, Jammu, Ladakh or Gilgit-Baltistan.
It recognised one dispute concerning all the regions of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Every United Nations Security Council Resolution refers to the people of the State as a whole.
International law makes no distinction between Dogras, Kashmiris, Baltis, Ladakhis, Gujjars or Paharis when discussing the principle of self-determination.
The recognised political unit has always been the former princely State. That fact alone demonstrates that there is a political identity that extends beyond ethnicity.
Identities Are Layered
Identity is rarely singular. Most people possess several identities simultaneously. For example, a resident of Rawalakot living in the United Kingdom may truthfully say:
I am a Sudhan by tribe, a Pahari by language, a Poonchi by region, a Kashmiri by political identity and a British citizen by nationality.
None of these identities contradicts another.
Similarly, a Kashmiri Pandit born in Srinagar may be ethnically Kashmiri, politically Kashmiri, and he may regard himself legally as an Indian citizen.
In other words, identity is layered, and it is not exclusive.
Why the Whole State Came to Be Known as Kashmir
Mr Gilani correctly points out that the Valley originally possessed the historical name "Kashmir." However, with the passage of time, the entire princely State came to be known internationally by that name.
History provides many similar examples. England gave its name to the English language, although millions who speak English are not English.
Look at the following examples:
· The Netherlands is often referred to as Holland, even though Holland is only one part of the country.
· The United Kingdom is frequently called Britain, despite Britain being only one of its islands.
· Likewise, the prominence of the Kashmir Valley gradually resulted in the entire State becoming known simply as "Kashmir."
Whether historians and ordinary people like it or not, that has become the accepted diplomatic and political reality.
History Did Not Stop in 1846
One point deserves particular emphasis. History did not end with the creation of the State. Nor did it end in 1947. Nearly 180 years have passed since the State came into existence.
During that period its inhabitants experienced common institutions, shared administration, common laws, political struggles, partition, war, United Nations involvement and international diplomacy.
History transformed what had originally been separate regions into a recognised political community. Ignoring this evolution risks freezing history at a single moment while overlooking everything that followed.
The Danger of Narrow Definitions
Restricting the word Kashmiri solely to people of Kashmiri ethnicity may unintentionally deepen divisions within a society that has already suffered enough fragmentation.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir have been divided by ceasefire lines, constitutions, administrative boundaries, religions and competing nationalisms.
They should not now be divided further by denying the existence of a shared political identity. The former princely State was never homogeneous. Its richness lay precisely in its diversity. It contained Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and Buddhists.
It spoke Kashmiri, Dogri, Pahari, Gojri, Balti, Ladakhi, Shina and many other languages. Its diversity was not a weakness. It is regarded as a strength. It was its defining characteristic. It reflected tolerance and ability to live together, and respect for other religions and cultures.
A Civic Nation, Not an Ethnic Nation
For decades I have consistently argued that the people of the former princely State constitute a civic nation rather than an ethnic nation.
They are united not because they all speak one language or belong to one ethnic group, but because they inherited a common political history, a common constitutional tradition and a common international status. This understanding provides an inclusive identity.
· It allows a Dogra to remain proudly Dogra.
· A Balti remains proudly Balti.
· A Gujjar remains proudly Gujjar.
· A Kashmiri remains proudly Kashmiri.
· Yet all may simultaneously identify themselves as members of the wider political community of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Conclusion
Manzoor Gilani has done an important service by encouraging a historical discussion rather than an emotional one. However, the debate should not stop at ethnicity. History teaches us that political identities evolve.
The people of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir are not merely a collection of ethnic communities living side by side.
Over nearly two centuries, they have also become a political community, recognised both by history and by international law.
For that reason, I believe it is entirely legitimate for every permanent inhabitant of the former princely State—and their descendants—to describe themselves as Kashmiris in the civic and political sense, while proudly preserving their own regional, linguistic, cultural and ethnic identities.
The future of Jammu and Kashmir, whatever constitutional form it may ultimately take, will only be secure if it embraces this inclusive understanding of identity.
A united political identity does not erase diversity. It protects it.
People also need to remember these historical developments, for example:
- The Treaty of Amritsar (1846) created one political entity.
- The State Subject laws created one civic community.
- The Indian Independence Act 1947 recognised the princely State as one constitutional unit.
- Mountbatten's statement to the Chamber of Princes acknowledged that rulers could choose independence (even if political realities later constrained that option).
- Jinnah publicly stated that Jammu and Kashmir could join India, join Pakistan, or remain independent.
- The UN Security Council resolutions dealt with the entire State as one disputed territory.
- Article 257 of Pakistan's Constitution recognises that the relationship with Pakistan is to be determined by the wishes of the people if they accede.
- Yet the AJK Interim Constitution Act 1974 restricts advocacy of any constitutional future other than accession to Pakistan. END.
Dr Shabir Choudhry is a London-based political analyst, author, and expert on South Asian affairs, with a focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kashmir. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
