Key Takeaways
- Since the 2019 revocation of Kashmir’s limited autonomy, the region has become a high‑surveillance zone where physical checkpoints, biometric systems, CCTV, drones and digital monitoring are tightly integrated.
- Authorities justify these measures as necessary for security, but they produce a climate of constant observation that erodes privacy, fosters self‑censorship and undermines trust among civilians.
- Journalists face direct threats, legal harassment under laws such as the UAPA and the DPDP Act, and are often forced to work anonymously or abandon reporting altogether.
- Surveillance extends into religious spaces, schools and even private homes, altering how people practice faith, communicate and move across the Line of Control.
- The psychological toll is severe; studies indicate widespread mental distress, yet international audiences often overlook the everyday impact of living under “an invisible gaze.”
- Meaningful protection would require transparent limits on data collection, independent oversight, and accessible mechanisms for journalists and civilians to challenge unlawful surveillance.
Context and Escalation of Surveillance
Kashmir entered a new phase of control in August 2019 when the Indian government repealed Article 370, stripping the region of its semi‑autonomous status and converting it into a Union Territory. Since then, security logic has permeated governance, and a deadly militant attack near Pahalgam in April 2025 that killed at least 26 civilians triggered an even larger security deployment. Authorities routinely describe intensified vehicle checks, increased patrols, drone surveillance and high‑resolution CCTV as “necessary” for stability, yet these measures have entrenched a pervasive monitoring apparatus that touches virtually every aspect of daily life.
Physical Surveillance Infrastructure
Across Kashmir, a dense web of checkpoints punctuates highways and urban streets, where troops routinely stop vehicles, demand identification and sometimes inspect personal belongings. Biometric systems, networked CCTV cameras and drones are now standard in public institutions, intersections, schools and even religious sites. Near the Line of Control, civilians must obtain police permission, submit identity details and submit to picture‑taking at each checkpoint, while drones monitor movement in the surrounding countryside. The army also marks residential gates with unique tracking numbers, separate from official house numbers, to monitor households more closely.
Digital Surveillance and Device Controls
Smartphones are treated as state property rather than private devices; at any checkpoint or even on the street, authorities can seize a phone and compel the owner to reveal passwords, granting access to messages, photos, browsing history and contact lists. Virtual private networks are banned, and security forces regularly examine call detail records (CDRs) despite a 2025 High Court ruling that CDRs alone insufficient for conviction. Social media platforms are monitored for “anti‑national” content, and posts deemed seditious can lead to immediate legal action under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Threats and Legal Pressure on Journalists
Journalists operate under constant risk of intimidation, legal harassment and physical violence. In February 2025, Kashmiri reporter Majid Hyderi was allegedly threatened with death after refusing to withdraw a complaint; a subsequent High Court order barred authorities from harassing him without due process. Yet such rulings are the exception rather than the norm. The 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, while framed as a privacy safeguard, grants the state expansive powers to access data while offering citizens limited redress, effectively enabling authorities to target journalists who publish personal information without consent.
Interview Methodology and Source Protection
To safeguard his identity, the interviewee—referred to as Shakeen Ahmed (a pseudonym)—requested anonymity and communicated via a shared online document that was deleted immediately after use to minimize data‑breach risks. Encrypted messaging services such as Signal are not officially banned, but Shakeen noted that if the army discovers Signal use during a routine check, the phone is confiscated and the user may be beaten. This precaution underscores the extreme lengths journalists must take to protect themselves and their sources while attempting to document surveillance realities.
Everyday Life Under Constant Observation
Shakeen describes Kashmir as a place where the word “privacy” has vanished. From the moment one awakens until bedtime, an “invisible gaze” follows every movement, prompting individuals to regulate their speech, behaviour and even thoughts. The psychological impact is profound: people internalize surveillance, self‑censor routine conversations and develop a pervasive sense of anxiety. Even when authorities are not directly intervening, the mere awareness of being watched reshapes social interaction and erodes spontaneous community life.
Historical Roots of the Surveillance State
The post‑2019 shift institutionalized surveillance as a tool of governance. Prolonged internet shutdowns—recorded as the longest ever in a democracy—were followed by the expansion of digital monitoring systems, the integration of intelligence databases and the centralization of policing. Practices such as mandatory CCTV deployment in schools and public spaces, routine CDR extraction and the use of local informants illustrate how security logic has been woven into administrative routines, transforming Kashmir into a high‑surveillance territory.
Concrete Examples of Surveillance Practices
Shakeen cites several telling incidents: an army camp that lost a drone while surveilling a civilian area then broadcast a mosque announcement via azzan loudspeakers requesting locals to report the drone’s location; the assignment of unique numbers to residential gates for tracking; and the recording of passengers’ boarding‑pass details at Srinagar airport by the Central Industrial Security Force. These examples reveal how surveillance infiltrates religious institutions, private homes and travel points, creating a sense of living in a “beautiful prison.”
Interconnected Surveillance Feedback Loop
Different surveillance modalities do not operate in isolation; they reinforce one another. A social‑media post flagged as secessionist can prompt a police visit to the author’s home before the user even realizes they are under scrutiny. CCTV footage can be cross‑referenced with telecom data, while information gathered from local informants triggers digital scrutiny of suspects’ phones. This tight coupling means there is no clear boundary between online and offline spaces—both are continuously monitored and feed into each other, amplifying the state’s ability to track individuals.
Legal Frameworks and Their Effects on Press Freedom
The DPDP Act, intended to safeguard personal data, actually provides the government with broad exemptions that enable unfettered data collection in Kashmir. Journalists now think twice before quoting sources or publishing personal details, fearing penalties under the law. Sources, in turn, insist on anonymity before sharing information, which further constrains reporting. The Act’s weak oversight mechanisms and limited avenues for redress mean it does little to protect citizens and instead reinforces the existing surveillance regime.
Surveillance of Religious and Community Spaces
Mosques and other religious venues have become focal points of state monitoring. Clerics are routinely summoned to army camps or police stations and instructed to avoid discussing the conflict, police conduct or separatist themes; they are told to focus solely on social topics such as drug addiction or elder care. In early 2026, village heads were asked to submit bank details, mobile numbers, emails, passports and even credit‑card information as part of a profiling effort. Such measures have altered worship practices: many Muslims now avoid mosques because they feel watched while praying, eroding a traditional source of solace and community cohesion.
Border and Line of Control Monitoring
Near the Line of Control, surveillance is explicitly militarized. Civilians must secure police permission, submit identity documents, share phone numbers and have their pictures taken at each checkpoint, while drones overhead monitor movement. These restrictions translate into limited mobility, frequent stops and a constant sense of observation for border residents. Although authorities justify the measures as border security, the surveillance inevitably spills over into everyday life, reinforcing the perception that Kashmir is under watch “per square meter.”
Journalistic Work Under Siege
The climate of fear has dramatically altered news gathering. Sources that once spoke freely now refuse to talk unless guaranteed anonymity, and many journalists have abandoned reporting altogether or switched professions after short stints in the field. Media houses avoid stories that could provoke legal action or state retaliation, leading to self‑censorship at the editorial desk. Notable cases include editors imprisoned for hundreds of days whose outlets were shut permanently after release. The result is a shrinking, increasingly fragile press corps that struggles to fulfill its role as a democratic watchdog.
Misunderstandings and Psychological Toll
International audiences often reduce Kashmir to a geopolitical dispute between India, Pakistan and China, overlooking the fact that surveillance permeates every square meter of the region. This narrow view misses the deep psychological strain: Médecins Sans Frontières reports that nearly every second Kashmiri pedestrian experiences mental distress due to constant observation. The pervasive anxiety changes how individuals carry themselves at work, interact with neighbours and even perceive their own identity, yet these effects remain largely invisible outside the region.
Calls for Accountability and Protection
Shakeen emphasizes that meaningful change must begin with transparency: the government should clarify how CCTV footage is used, who profits from it and what legal limits exist on data collection. Independent oversight mechanisms and accessible avenues for journalists and civilians to challenge unlawful surveillance are essential. Without such reforms, the cycle of fear, self‑censorship and institutionalized monitoring will continue to undermine both press freedom and the everyday lives of Kashmiri people.