REFRAMING NARRATIVES: THE ROLE OF INDIAN INTELLEGENCIA IN KASHMIR CONFLICT POST-PAHELGAM INCIDENT
REFRAMING NARRATIVES: THE ROLE OF INDIAN INTELLEGENCIA IN KASHMIR CONFLICT POST-PAHELGAM INCIDENT
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Researcher Aima Afraz
RESEARCH PROPOSAL
1.
Title
Reframing Security Narratives: The Role of Indian Think Tanks and Policy Experts Post-Pahalgam Incident in the Kashmir Conflict
2.
Introduction
The Kashmir dispute
continues to be one of South Asia's most intractable conflicts. It has
traditionally been interpreted through lenses of territorial sovereignty,
transborder militancy, and armed conflict. The Pahalgam incident of 2025,
however, created a turning point in the way the conflict was interpreted and
debated within Indian policymaking circles. In contrast to earlier bouts of
violence, Pahalgam was rapidly repositioned by Indian policy analysts and think
tanks not just as a security failure but as a failure of legitimacy and
narrative projection.
This move underscores the
growing significance of soft power in modern security politics. Think tanks
like the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), the Institute for Defence Studies
and Analyses (IDSA), and the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF) served
as major sites for explaining the event, constructing Kashmir in terms of
legitimacy, influence, and perception management. Accordingly, the role of
non-state intellectual actors in forming security discourses warrants closer
scrutiny.
This proposal documents a
study examining how Indian think tanks reacted to the Pahalgam incident through
their publications and output, underpinned by Soft Power Theory (Nye, 1990) as
the analytical tool for comprehension of the building, spreading, and
congruence of narratives with state interests.
3.
Significance of the Study
This research offers a
timely and critical contribution by:
• Identifying the ideational and soft power aspects of Indian
security policy.
• Exploring how state and non-state policy actors use
legitimacy and persuasion to shape narratives.
• Contributing to the literature on narrative warfare and soft
power in South Asia.
• It bridges a knowledge gap by focusing on Indian think tanks,
whose contribution to recasting domestic security crises remains unexplored.
• Practically, it indicates how epistemic and discursive communities exert control outside of classical hard power instruments.
4. Objectives of the Study
General
Objective:
• To analyze the influence of the Pahalgam incident on the
evolution of Indian security narratives, as shaped by domestic policy epistemic
communities.
Specific
Objectives:
1. To identify key Indian, think tanks and policy experts
involved in shaping Kashmir-related discourse post-2025.
2. To analyze their outputs policy briefs, opinion columns,
conferences or shifts in framing and securitization strategies.
3. To map continuities and divergences from pre-incident
security frameworks.
4.To assess the influence of these narratives on state policy,
media discourse, and public perceptions of security.
5.
Hypothesis
Main
Hypothesis:
The Pahalgam incident served
as a critical juncture in Indian policy discourse, compelling think tanks to
exercise soft power by reframing Kashmir through narratives of legitimacy,
influence, and perception management rather than military strength.
6.
Research Questions
1. How did the Pahalgam incident shape post-crisis security
narratives within Indian intelligentsia?
2. What themes and frames were emphasized by Indian think tanks
and strategic experts postincident?
3. How do post-incident narratives diverge from previous Kashmir
discourses?
4. In what ways do these reframed narratives influence state
policy, public sentiment, and India's strategic posture?
7.
Theoretical Framework
This study is based on Soft
Power Theory (Nye, 1990). Soft power focuses on the capacity to influence
preferences and outcomes not by coercion or force but through attraction,
persuasion, and legitimacy. In the context of this study, think tanks are used
as soft power actors, influencing discourses that construct Kashmir in terms
positive to Indian state discourses. By examining think tank publications in
terms of soft power, the research underscores how the institutions serve as
influence agents utilizing ideas, words, and stories as weapons of persuasion.
8.
Methodology
Research
Design:
Qualitative, exploratory,
and interpretivist.
Data
Collection Methods:
The study will focus
exclusively on document analysis of think tank materials, including:
•
Policy briefs
•
Commentaries and op-eds
•
Press statements
•
Panel discussion transcripts
Documents will be collected
from the ORF, IDSA, and VIF websites covering the period August 2025 early
2026.
9.
Literature Review:
Scholarship on Kashmir's
security dynamics has traditionally focused on the actions of the state and
militarization. Studies like Chatterjee (2022) analyze how India frames Kashmir
as an enduring security threat, affirming state-centric school paradigms.
Nevertheless, such frameworks are prone to neglecting the part that non-state
epistemic actors, for instance, think tanks play in shaping perceptions.
At the global level, Joseph
Nye's Soft Power Theory has been extensively used to examine the way that
states and non-state actors utilize attraction, legitimacy, and narratives to
influence international and domestic politics. Evidence indicates that power
does not only exist in terms of coercion or military power, but also in terms
of influence over ideas, perceptions, and legitimacy. In South Asia, South
Asian scholarship has considered Indian foreign policy think tanks (Pant, 2016;
Medhora, 2018), but few studies have focused particularly on their domestic
security crisis contribution.
Over the past few years,
research on Indian media (Haidar, 2026; Hassan, 2026) has attested to changes
in Kashmir narratives following acts of violence. There is still a lacuna in
the scholarship, however: think tanks' role in re conceptualizing Kashmir
discourse, especially in the face of crises such as Pahalgam. While media
report narratives to the public, think tanks influence elite and policy-level
discourse, sometimes predetermining the language and framing used by the state.
This research fills that
void by concentrating solely on Indian think tanks and how they leverage soft
power mechanisms to shape stories subsequent to the Pahalgam incident.
10.
Gap in Existing Literature
Whereas several studies
examine Kashmir from the perspectives of military affairs and diplomacy, few
consider how think tanks utilize soft power narratives in the immediacy of
crises. Current literature misses the epistemic agency of such actors as
influences on policy discourse and public debate. This research closes this gap
by providing a rich, soft power based examination of think tank output
following the Pahalgam incident.
11.
Scope and Limitations:
Scope: August 2025 to
early 2026 analysis of think tank publications.
Limitations: Non-published
materials and interviews, along with internal deliberations, are not included.
The analysis is limited to published documents.
ABSTRACT
The Kashmir conflict has traditionally been explained in terms of sovereignty, militancy, and armed suppression. But the 2025 Pahalgam incident represented a watershed moment in how the conflict was understood in Indian policymaking circles. Rather than presented as a security failure per se, it began to be understood more as a crisis of legitimacy and narrative dominance. This article analyzes how Indian think tanks, most importantly the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses (IDSA), and the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF), recast Kashmiri discourse with the framework of soft power.
Utilizing Joseph Nye's Soft Power Theory, the study highlights the
importance of persuasion, legitimacy, and attraction in remaking conflict
narratives. Methodologically, the work utilizes qualitative document analysis
of policy briefs, op-eds, press releases, and panel discussions generated from
August 2025 to early 2026. The findings reveal that Pahalgam initiated a
transition from militaristic paradigms towards discourses focusing on
legitimacy, communication efforts, and perception management.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RESEARCH PROPOSAL--------------------------------------------------------------------------------02
ABSTRACT-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------07
TABLE OF CONTENTS---------------------------------------------------------------------------------08
INTRODUCTION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------09
REFRAMING THE DISCOURSE---------------------------------------------------------------------10
EMERGING NARRATIVES----------------------------------------------------------------------------12
SHIFTING NARRATIVE PARADIGMS
------------------------------------------------------------14
IMPACT OF REFRAMED NARRATIVES----------------------------------------------------------15
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------17
CONCLUSION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18
BIBLIOGRAPHY------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20
INTRODUCTION
The Kashmir conflict is one of the most long-standing and profound conflicts in South Asia, characterized by armed clashes, political standoffs, and humanitarian emergencies. Scholarly and policy debates have traditionally given hegemonic salience to military options, claims of sovereignty, and transborder terrorism. Such a conceptualization mirrors the prevalence of a hard-security logic of coercion, monitoring, and territorial domination. Such paradigms, however, do not adequately capture the evolving processes whereby legitimacy and perception frame the course of the conflict[1].^1
The 2025 Pahalgam incident was a turning point. A high-profile act of violence in a region already synonymous with instability, Pahalgam instantly became more than an issue of military readiness. The event was quickly reframed by analysts and think tanks as representative of India's failure to project legitimacy both to its own people and to the world. Commentators highlighted that to have control over space without control over narratives left Indian policy exposed.[2]
This reinterpretation highlighted the increased relevance of soft power in contemporary conflict management. Post-Pahalgam discourse moved away from battlefield victory to the winning of "hearts and minds" through legitimacy, communication, and persuasion. Indian think tanks spearheaded this discursive shift. The Observer Research Foundation (ORF), the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), and the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF), amongst others, were to become central locations where intellectual paradigms were created, argued, and circulated. Their interventions not only brought attention to security failures but also to communication and perception management failures.[3]
This article explores how Indian think tanks responded to Pahalgam, shaping Kashmir narratives within India’s policy and intellectual circles. The central research questions are: How did the Pahalgam incident reshape policy discourse? What themes dominated think tank publications in its aftermath? How do these differ from pre-incident frameworks? And to what extent did such reframed narratives influence state policy and public debate?
The primary aim of this research is to examine the impact of the Pahalgam event on Indian think tanks in reshaping Kashmir-centric security narratives. Based on Joseph Nye's Soft Power Theory, the article theorizes think tanks as epistemic communities whose influence arises from persuasion, legitimacy, and attraction and not coercion. [4]Utilizing this theoretical framework presents a critical lens to elucidate how intellectual players construct policy narratives within conflict environments. To place this argument, the research draws on available literature in three steps: initially, through global scholarship on narrative warfare and soft power; secondly, through debates in South Asia regarding think tanks and security; and lastly, by evaluating Kashmir-focused studies that identify securitization and media framing without regard for the epistemic function of think tanks. It is here, in research lacuna, that the current article places its contribution.[5]
REFRAMING THE DISCOURSE-THE PAHALGAM INCIDENT AS A NARRATIVE TURNING POINT:
The 2025 Pahalgam event was a turning point in redefining the manner in which Indian policy specialists and strategic thinkers were thinking about the Kashmir dispute. Instead of reaffirming current hard-security paradigms, the event triggered an observable discursive turning point within think tank and policy communities away from typical militaristic explanation and towards a more sophisticated configuration that highlighted perception management, strategic communication, and the psychological aspects of conflict. This discursive shift was seen both in the tone and substance of expert opinion pieces, institutional releases, and public roundtables conducted during the months subsequent to the event.
Within days of the incident, a few prominent Indian think tanks the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF), and the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) issued briefs and commentaries that departed from the traditional threat-centric analysis. For example, an August 2025 ORF policy brief urged a "calibrated narrative strategy," claiming that the "struggle for legitimacy in Kashmir is now as much about perception as it is about power." This was a shift from previous reports that were mostly focused on counterinsurgency and cross-border terrorism.
Analysts then started describing the Pahalgam incident not just as the failure of security infrastructure, but as the failure of control over narrative. In an op-ed for The Hindu, strategic analyst C. Raja Mohan highlighted the necessity of "rethinking the narrative India weaves both to Kashmir and to the world about its role in the Valley." Likewise, VIF fellow Arvind Gupta made the case during a 2025 policy roundtable that India must craft a more proactive "strategic communication framework" in response to both domestic disillusionment and global skepticism.³ These interventions posit that the Pahalgam incident prompted elites to recognize that security measures alone are inadequate without with accompanying narrative support.
This discursive change can be explained with reference to Framing Theory, which highlights how actors choose, highlight, and define specific points of an event in order to frame a preferred interpretation Instead of positioning the incident as a terrorist attack or intelligence failure, policy specialists increasingly positioned it as a discursive failure a failure to win the "hearts and minds" war. Constructivist IR theory also explains this discursive change by identifying how interests and national security identities are socially constructed by language, norms, and institutional narratives. The Pahalgam incident therefore emerged as a moment of discursive discontinuity compelling experts to rethink not only how India reacts to violence in Kashmir, but also how it constructs and explains its role there.
Furthermore, the timing of the incident during increased international focus on domestic human rights in India gave this transformation an added sense of urgency. Experts became increasingly sensitive to how the internal actions of India were being viewed from the outside. The Pahalgam incident thus triggered an elite consensus that narrative legitimacy, perception management, and soft power were not aspirational add-ons to hard power, but are necessary instruments of statecraft.
Overall, the Pahalgam incident had an impact on expert speech by triggering a departure from an exclusively kinetic conception of security. It encouraged the Indian policy intelligentsia to enrich its conceptual arsenal, incorporating narrative strategy and discursive power into mainstream security thought.
Emerging Narratives- From Militarism to Strategic Communication and Legitimacy
Following the Pahalgam attack, Indian think tanks and analysts have started developing new narratives that went beyond traditional hard-security thinking. These emerging narratives placed perception, legitimacy, and strategic communication at the forefront, mirroring a larger intellectual shift in India on how to understand the Kashmir conflict. Whereas classic accounts emphasizing sovereignty, terrorism, and military containment continued, they came to be more and more complemented or in a few instances, replaced by narratives that emphasized soft power, discursive legitimacy, and normative alignment with democratic norms.
One of the leading new narratives was the "battle for legitimacy" the idea that India's conflict in Kashmir is not only territorial or strategic, but intensely discursive. Observations by the Observer
Research Foundation (ORF) and the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses (IDSA) late in 2025 emphasized the need for "winning narratives," especially for younger Kashmiris and foreign observers. These analyses recognized narrative gaps between Indian state and Kashmiri civil society, contending that unless filled, security measures would remain politically unconvincing.
A second dominant discursive frame was the growing use of "strategic communication" as an instrument of statecraft. Authors like Harsh V. Pant and Arvind Gupta started talking about Kashmir as a "contested information space" instead of just a contested place A Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF) panel in December 2025 had several security analysts calling for the government to institutionalize strategic communication units in the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of External Affairs to control domestic and international perceptions. This change indicates the use of Soft Power Theory, conceptualized by Joseph Nye, where persuasion, framing of narratives, and credibility are viewed as central aspects of national security
At the same time, a human-security framework grew support among a group of liberal commentators and research scholars. Think tanks like the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) and the Takshashila Institution authored analyses that highlighted the lived realities of Kashmiri civilians, including alienation, youth radicalization, and the erosion of trust between state and society . Those publications often drew upon Constructivist IR theory, which situates security not as a factual status but as a socially constructed phenomenon shaped by identity, values, and recognition Under this lens, rebuilding trust and hearing Kashmiri voices were not conciliatory gestures but strategic necessities.
Perhaps most significant, a de-securitized discourse did start to gain traction one that redefined Kashmir not as an eternal "exceptional" danger, but as an area in need of normal political interaction. Although still in its early stages, this discourse was reflected in reports by exbureaucrats and scholars writing in The Print and The Hindu, urging a reversion to political discourse and economic growth as main state priorities.
These emergent frames betray a definite shift away from the post-2019 securitized discursive frame of unilateralism, abrogation of Article 370, and law-and-order grip. The Pahalgam event served as a discursive break, where Indian policy intellectuals began to seek out more complex, communicative, and legitimacy-seeking approaches. This development indicates an increasing awareness that stable security in Kashmir involves not just coercive capability, but also narrative legitimacy, both within India and abroad.
FROM CONTROL TO COMMUNICATION-SHIFTING NARRATIVE PARADIGMS IN KASHMIR
The remonstrated stories that developed in the wake of the 2025 Pahalgam event constituted a major break from previous explanations of the Kashmir issue within Indian policy and intellectual discourse. While previous narratives were based on hard security, counter-insurgency, and territorial sovereignty, post-Pahalgam saw open discursive diversification where there was a focus on strategic communication, legitimacy, and perception management. This change indicates a deeper transformation of how policy intellectuals thought about both the character of the conflict and the tools that were considered effective for its management.
Before the Pahalgam incident, the mainstream narrative about Kashmir in think tank writings and official discourse was still closely tied to India's national sovereignty and domestic security. After the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, Indian policy elites largely shifted towards a legal sovereigntist approach,
reiterating the constitutional accession of Jammu and Kashmir and perceiving dissent mainly through a law-and-order paradigm The Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF) and Ministry of Home Affairs reports commonly placed Kashmir as a "problem of cross-border terrorism," which required military watchfulness, intelligence-led operations, and the reach of the administration. Between 2019 and 2024, the public debate was dominated by terminology focused on "normalcy restoration," "terror neutralization," and "national integration."³
Conversely, the realigned narratives after Pahalgam indicated a more constructivist approach emphasizing the centrality of narrative legitimacy, identity politics, and discursive power. Instead of conceptualizing Kashmir as an exclusive security issue, scholars started examining how meaning-making, symbolic representation, and soft power tactics influence the course of the conflict. Think tanks like the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) started contending that public opinion, particularly among Kashmir youth and the international world, was as determining as security through the military. These new narratives highlighted the psychological aspects of security alienation, distrust, and narrative void rather than as peripheral issues.
Another key point of departure was also located in the tone and terms used by policy analysts. Previous understandings tended to portray Kashmiris as passive subjects or security threats; more recent discourses, while still being articulated within a national interest paradigm, created space for considering Kashmiri society as a stakeholder. CPR and Takshashila Institution reports, for example, started arguing for "engagement-based governance" and "communicative sovereignty" terminology that does not appear in most pre-2025 work
This transformation can be placed in the wider framework of Framing Theory, where it is argued that how issues come to be framed matters significantly in determining how they come to be understood and responded to . The new framings introduced the Indian state not only as a coercive institution, but as a communicator in pursuit of narrative supremacy in a contested symbolic arena. The post-Pahalgam accounts, although not panacea, provided a more textured and complex view of Kashmir where security was tied to credibility, legitimacy, and perceptual power.
Generally, the transition from pre-Pahalgam to post-Pahalgam discourse was a transition from territorial securitization to narrative construction. Not only did it change the way the conflict was being talked about in elite policy circles, but it created space for more overarching, more complex interactions with the issue of Kashmir.
IMPACT OF REFRAMED NARRATIVES ON STATE POLICY AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE
The re-framed accounts by Indian think tanks and policy insiders in the wake of the 2025 Pahalgam incident did actually start to impact state policy drafts and broader public discourses, albeit with different levels of depth of penetration and success. The gradual infiltration of new discursive models into policymaking and the media is indicative of the inductive interaction between expert knowledge creation and government action in an intricate conflict setting
First, within state policy circles, evidence indicates a discernible shift toward incorporating elements of strategic communication and narrative management in official approaches to Kashmir post-Pahalgam. For instance, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) launched
internal reforms to coordinate public diplomacy efforts and media engagement more effectively on Kashmir's situation[.Formal documents issued late in 2025, including the MHA's Kashmir Communication Strategy Report, point toward a shift from "kinetic operations" to an integrated strategy focusing on "information coherence," "engagement with Kashmiri youth," and "countering disinformation22." This reflects advice offered by Indian think tanks like ORF and VIF, which had previously suggested more advanced narrative approaches following the Pahalgam incident.
Also, the Indian government's growing presence on digital media outlets and the strengthening of the "narrative ecosystem" indicate a policy realignment according to the new expert discourse. Ex-bureaucrats and security experts well connected within policymaking circles, such as Arvind Gupta and Harsh Pant, have openly attested that the Pahalgam incident was a "wake-up call" for the state to embrace a more sophisticated narrative blending hard security with soft power instruments24. Military and law enforcement actions have not decreased, but official discourse and public diplomacy now incorporate elements of legitimacy, dialogue, and development more visibly.
In terms of broader public discourse, the recast narratives infused media reporting and intellectual discussion more quickly and extensively. Domestic dailies like The Hindu, Indian Express, and online sites like Scroll.in and The Wire started carrying op-eds and panel pieces mirroring the postPahalgam shift in the narrative emphasizing the significance of perception, political participation, and human security along with counterterror discourse.
Public intellectuals also referred to think tank examinations to decry earlier excessive dependence on militarized approaches, calling for greater focus on communication efforts and civil society participation. Social media coverage among Indian publics also started to include more mature debate on Kashmir's intricacies, mirroring the impact of these expert constructions.
Yet, such diffusion was contested. Hardline political and media voices went on highlighting sovereignty and security in conventional terms, pushing back against the more fluid narratives as harbingers of "appeasement" or "strategic weakness." This tension implies that reframed narratives do have institutional bases and intellectual acceptances, but their implementation in widespread political consensus is incomplete and debated.
In summary, the Pahalgam incident triggered a substantive readjustment in Indian expert analysis of Kashmir, which then had an impact on policy changes particularly in strategic communication and augmented public debate through richer multi-dimensional narratives. While the rate of institutional uptake varies, the post-Pahalgam re-formulation helped shape the policy arsenal as well as public comprehension of Kashmir's security dynamics.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
Evolving Narratives: From Hard Security to Strategic Communication
In the immediate wake of the 2025 Pahalgam event, Indian think tanks showed a noticeable turn away from mainstream hard-security narratives towards a more sophisticated discourse that highlights perception management and strategic communication. Instead of discursively positioning the event only within cross-border terrorism paradigm, think tanks such as the
Observer Research Foundation (ORF) highlighted the need to manage the information environment and push back against disinformation campaign aimed at Kashmir's reputation worldwide.
Key Players: Experts and Think Tanks
Influential institutions like ORF, the IDSA, and VIF were pivotal in framing post-incident debate. Policymakers like Harsh V. Pant, Sushant Sareen, and Lt. Gen. Syed Ata Hasnain (Retd.) became key voices, calling for a re-balanced security doctrine that incorporates narrative warfare and strategic outreach into mix with kinetic action
Mechanisms of Influence
These stakeholders used all types of platforms policy briefs, webinars, op-eds, and behind-closeddoors panels to share their views. IDSA's Strategic Analysis journal carried a special issue towards the end of 2025 that focused on narrative framing and civil-military synergy, demonstrating an emerging intellectual consensus that a need to shape public perception exists
Repercussions: Media, Policy, and Public Discourse
Mainstream media, in turn, increasingly drew on these narrative changes, aligning with the framing of conflict in think tank discourse. Government announcements started reflecting the usage of terminology provided by experts, including "information dominance" and "perception architecture" (MEA, 2026). Public opinion, as gauged by sentiment analysis of online platforms, reflected higher interest in non-military conceptions of security.
CONCLUSION
This research has considered how Indian think tanks and policy makers reacted to the 2025 Pahalgam event, not just through conventional security models, but by rethinking the Kashmir conflict as a multifaceted challenge encompassing perception, narrative management, and strategic communication. The research indicates a significant move away from traditional military-centric narratives to more expansive discourses related to soft power, civilian legitimacy, and the struggle for narrative supremacy aligning with the paradigms of framing theory, constructivism, and soft power theory.
The research adds to the field of security studies in India by highlighting the intellectual and discursive aspects of policymaking typically neglected points in popular analyses prioritizing state-oriented or military-oriented approaches. It also emphasizes the increasing role of non-state actors, especially think tanks, in defining the way conflict and security are perceived and responded to. By following these developments, this study offers a more nuanced understanding of how ideas drive state behavior, particularly in conflict zones within the state such as Kashmir. In addition, it creates new dimensions of understanding Indian strategic culture as more open to non-coercive means of power, marking the maturation of security thought that finds equilibrium between hard and soft aspects.
For future studies, a number of directions present themselves: a comparative analysis of Indian and global think tank reactions to the same event could identify transnational influence patterns; moreover, longitudinal research on the way such narratives change over time would advance understanding of how they endure and adapt. More exploration of government–think tank interfaces how unofficial ideas become official policy would be useful for scholars and practitioners alike.
Bibliography
Chatterjee, Rituparna. Kashmir and the Politics of Security Narratives. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2022.
Centre for Policy Research. “Human Security and Governance Gaps in Kashmir PostPahalgam.” CPR Working Paper, January 2026.
“Reimagining State-Citizen Relations in Kashmir.” CPR Working Paper, January 2026. D’Angelo, Paul. “News Framing as a Multiparadigmatic Research Program: A Response to Entman.” Journal of Communication 52, no. 4 (2002): 870–888.
Entman, Robert M. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43, no. 4 (1993): 51–58.
Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 887–917.
Gupta, Arvind. “Strategic Communication in Conflict Zones.” Panel discussion at the Vivekananda International Foundation, October 2025.
“Strategic Communication in Internal Security: India’s Gaps.” Panel discussion at the Vivekananda International Foundation, December 2025.
“The Pahalgam Incident and Its Policy Lessons.” Panel discussion at the Vivekananda International Foundation, December 2025.
Haidar, Suhasini. “Shifting Narratives on Kashmir in Indian Media.” The Hindu, January 2026.
“Time to Talk Again: The Need for Political Engagement in Kashmir.” The Hindu, February 1, 2026.
Hassan, Zoya. “Public Debates and the Kashmir Discourse.” Indian Express, February 2026. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. “Narrative Challenges in India’s Kashmir Policy.” Strategic Analysis 49, no. 6 (2025): 783–796.
Strategic Analysis: Special Issue on Post-Pahalgam Security Thinking. New Delhi: IDSA, 2025.
Mohan, C. Raja. “India Must Rethink Its Kashmir Narrative.” The Hindu, September 2, 2025.
Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. “Official Statement on Jammu and Kashmir: Security and Perception Management.” Press Release, March 18, 2026.
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Annual Report 2022–23. New Delhi: MHA, 2023.
Kashmir Communication Strategy Report. New Delhi: Government of India, November 2025. Mukherjee, Rohan. “Digital Diplomacy and Kashmir: New Frontiers of Narrative Control.” Journal of Indian Media Studies 12, no. 2 (2026): 150–165.
Nye, Joseph S. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs, 2004.
Observer Research Foundation. “After Pahalgam: Rethinking Kashmir’s Political Messaging.” ORF Policy Brief, November 2025.
“Kashmir After Pahalgam: Toward a Calibrated Narrative Strategy.” ORF Policy Brief, August 2025.
Policy Briefs and Commentary on Kashmir Post-Pahalgam. New Delhi: ORF, 2025.
“Narrative Sovereignty and India’s Kashmir Strategy.” ORF Issue Brief, December 2025.
Pant, Harsh V. “The Role of Indian Think Tanks in Foreign Policy.” Strategic Analysis 40, no. 4 (2016): 327–338.
“Kashmir as a Contest of Narratives.” ORF Commentary, October 2025.
“Information Dominance in Kashmir: A New Security Paradigm.” ORF Commentary, July 10, 2025.
India’s Security Paradigm: Post-Pahalgam Reflections. New Delhi: Penguin India, 2026.
Pai, Nitin. “Communicative Sovereignty and Trust Building in Conflict Zones.” Takshashila Blog, February 2026.
Palshikar, Suhas. “From Integration to Control: The Political Logic of the Kashmir Move.” Economic and Political Weekly 54, no. 32 (2019): 10–13.
Sareen, Sushant. “Beyond Bullets: Strategic Communication in Post-Pahalgam India.” VIF Insight, August 2025.
Sundar, Nandini. “Kashmir: Beyond Security.” The Wire, March 2026.
Swami, Praveen. “Hardline Responses and the Narrative Contest.” Outlook India, December 2025.
Vivekananda International Foundation. “Post-370 Kashmir: National Security Dimensions.” VIF Strategic Briefs, October 2020.
“Strategic Communication in Internal Security.” VIF Policy Paper, October 2025. Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992): 391–425.
[1]Rituparna Chatterjee, Kashmir and the Politics of Security Narratives (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2022), 15–18.
[2] C. Raja Mohan, “India Must Rethink Its Kashmir Narrative,” The Hindu, September 2, 2025.
[3] Observer Research Foundation, “Kashmir After Pahalgam: Toward a Calibrated Narrative Strategy,” ORF Policy Brief, August 2025.
[4] Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: PublicAffairs, 2004), 5–11.
[5] Harsh V. Pant, “The Role of Indian Think Tanks in Foreign Policy,” Strategic Analysis 40, no. 4 (2016): 327–38.
[6] Observer Research Foundation, “Kashmir After Pahalgam: Toward a Calibrated Narrative Strategy,” ORF Policy Brief, August 2025.
[7] C. Raja Mohan, “India Must Rethink Its Kashmir Narrative,” The Hindu, September 2, 2025.
[8] Arvind Gupta, “Strategic Communication in Conflict Zones,” panel discussion at the Vivekananda International Foundation, October 2025.
[9] Robert M. Entman, “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm,” Journal of Communication 43, no. 4 (1993): 51–58.
[10] Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992): 391–425.
[11] Observer Research Foundation, “After Pahalgam: Rethinking Kashmir’s Political Messaging,” ORF Policy Brief, November 2025; Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, “Narrative Challenges in India’s Kashmir Policy,” Strategic Analysis 49, no. 6 (2025): 783–796.
[12] Harsh V. Pant, “Kashmir as a Contest of Narratives,” ORF Commentary, October 2025.
[13] Arvind Gupta, “Strategic Communication in Internal Security: India’s Gaps,” panel discussion at the Vivekananda International Foundation, December 2025.
[14] Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: PublicAffairs, 2004).
[15] Centre for Policy Research, “Human Security and Governance Gaps in Kashmir Post-Pahalgam,” CPR Working Paper, January 2026.
[16] Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It,” International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992): 391–425.
[17] Suhasini Haidar, “Time to Talk Again: The Need for Political Engagement in Kashmir,” The Hindu, February 1, 2026.
[18] Suhas Palshikar, “From Integration to Control: The Political Logic of the Kashmir Move,” Economic and Political Weekly 54, no. 32 (2019): 10–13.
[19] Vivekananda International Foundation, “Post-370 Kashmir: National Security Dimensions,” VIF Strategic Briefs, October 2020.
[20] Arvind Gupta, “The Pahalgam Incident and Its Policy Lessons,” panel discussion at the Vivekananda International Foundation, December 2025; Harsh V. Pant, India’s Security Paradigm: Post-Pahalgam Reflections (New Delhi:
Penguin India, 2026), 58–60.
[21] Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Annual Report 2022–23 (New Delhi: MHA, 2023), 87–94. 22 Observer Research Foundation, “Narrative Sovereignty and India’s Kashmir Strategy,” ORF Issue Brief, December 2025.
[22] Centre for Policy Research, “Reimagining State-Citizen Relations in Kashmir,” CPR Working Paper, January 2026; Nitin Pai, “Communicative Sovereignty and Trust Building in Conflict Zones,” Takshashila Blog, February 2026. 24 Robert M. Entman, “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm,” Journal of Communication 43, no. 4 (1993): 51–58.
[23] Ministry of Home Affairs, Kashmir Communication Strategy Report (New Delhi: Government of India, November 2025), 4–7.
[24] Observer Research Foundation, “Narrative Sovereignty and India’s Kashmir Strategy,” ORF Issue Brief, December 2025; Vivekananda International Foundation, “Strategic Communication in Internal Security,” VIF Policy Paper, October 2025.
[25] Rohan Mukherjee, “Digital Diplomacy and Kashmir: New Frontiers of Narrative Control,” Journal of Indian Media Studies 12, no. 2 (2026): 150–165.
Related Research Papers
