Why Does Talking About Kunan-Poshpora Still Trigger Violence?

A proposed campus discussion at Azim Premji University about a 35-year-old Kunan-Poshpora case in Kashmir led to vandalism and FIRs in 2026. With no fresh legal development in the original case, why does revisiting unresolved allegations still provoke such an immediate and volatile reaction. And why is it branded “anti-national”?

Members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) allegedly stormed the Bengaluru campus to protest an unsanctioned event planned by the Spark Reading Circle. They described the proposed discussion as “anti-national.” 

Police detained between 18 and 25 ABVP members. Cases were registered for trespass and vandalism, and those detained were later granted bail.

The university registrar, meanwhile, filed a separate FIR against the student organisers under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita allegedly hurting religious sentiments and sharing of obscene material electronically, citing lack of prior approval and defamatory posts.

While there have been no new legal development in the original, yet, the proposal of a discussion alone was enough to trigger violence. Why?

A Night That Never Got Closure

On the night of February 23, 1991, soldiers of the Fourth Rajputana Rifles conducted a cordon-and-search operation in the twin villages of Kunan and Poshpora in Kupwara district, Kashmir. Men were assembled in an open field and interrogated. Women remained inside their homes.

What happened through that night is, depending on who is speaking, either a mass atrocity or a fabrication.

In the days that followed, multiple women accused soldiers of rape. An FIR recorded 23 complaints. Human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch, later estimated that the number could be higher.

Amnesty International reported that a fact-finding delegation interviewed dozens of women in March 1991 who corroborated the allegations.

The Army has consistently denied that any mass rape took place.

Medical examinations were conducted in March 1991 on women who filed complaints. Official records documented injuries described by doctors as consistent with assault, including lacerations and contusions.

However, the interpretation of those findings became contested. Subsequent investigations questioned whether the medical evidence conclusively established rape. What began as an inquiry into alleged crimes evolved into a dispute over credibility of survivors, doctors, and institutions.

Press Council Probe & ‘Massive Hoax’

The central government referred the matter to the Press Council of India, which constituted a fact-finding committee that included journalist B.G. Verghese. Its report described the allegations as a “massive hoax,” a phrase that would shape official and media narratives.

Human rights groups criticised the inquiry, arguing that it did not conduct a thorough independent investigation. In September 1991, the government closed the case, declaring it unfit for prosecution.

International assessments at the time, including reporting reflected in the US State Department human rights reviews, indicated evidence supporting the allegations. Domestically, however, much of the national press framed the matter as one of “disputed claims.”

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), applicable in Jammu and Kashmir at the time, requires prior sanction from the central government to prosecute armed forces personnel for actions undertaken in notified “disturbed areas.” No such sanction has been granted in this case.

Critics argue that this requirement has constrained accountability in conflict-related allegations, while supporters contend that such legal protection is necessary to ensure operational effectiveness in conflict zones.

Courtroom to Collective Memory

In 2004, survivors approached the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) seeking reinvestigation. In 2011, the SHRC recommended further inquiry and compensation. Police maintained that the case remained closed.

In 2013, survivors filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. The case saw multiple legal developments, including objections from the Army, and eventually reached the Supreme Court, where it remains pending. No criminal trial has commenced.

In 2016, five Kashmiri researchers published Do You Remember Kunan Poshpora? through Zubaan Books, compiling survivor testimonies, legal documents, and media analysis. The book reframed Kunan-Poshpora as not only a legal question, but one of collective memory and institutional silence.

An Unfinished Story

The recent confrontation at Azim Premji University followed a proposal by a student reading circle to hold a discussion marking Kashmiri Women’s Resistance Day. ABVP members objected, arguing that universities should not host events that, in their view, malign the armed forces. According to complaints and university statements, vandalism and physical scuffles followed, leaving students and security personnel injured.

Journalist and author Kalpana Sharma, who has written about Kashmir and media narratives, described visiting Kunan-Poshpora years later and finding that “the sorrow in the eyes of its women was palpable even today.” She wrote that the trauma persisted in everyday life, shaping marriage prospects, economic opportunities, and how villagers moved through the world.

Talking about sexual violence in conflicts, she has argued, is never just about recounting facts. It confronts power. Sexual violence symbolises not only harm to individuals but harm to collective dignity.

Now, more than three decades after, the incident, the events at Azim Premji University suggest that Kunan-Poshpora is no longer only about a pending court matter, but a contest over how, or whether, it should be remembered.

And that may explain why even a proposed discussion can still provoke such a reaction.