The government is considering extending the railway line from Baramulla towards South Kashmir, including districts such as Shopian, under the banner of development. Yet, at the community level, a simple and sincere question is being raised: is this railway truly needed here, and what will its long-term impact be?
From Baramulla to South Kashmir, road connectivity already exists. People commute daily for work, education, healthcare, and trade. Certainly, these roads require better maintenance and improved management, but the construction of a railway line passing through orchards, agricultural land, and settled villages has not emerged as a local demand. The land identified for acquisition sustains families through farming, especially apple cultivation. When such land is acquired with limited consultation or compensation that does not reflect its real value, the loss becomes permanent. Agricultural land, once taken, cannot be restored.
In Kashmir, land is more than a physical asset. It represents security, dignity, and survival. Entire households depend on it for their livelihood. While development is frequently mentioned in official statements, the concerns of farmers who stand to lose their only source of income receive far less attention. Decisions appear to be made at a distance, with limited engagement on the ground, leaving communities feeling unheard when construction activity begins.
Equally concerning is the question of priorities. Regions such as Poonch, Rajouri, Doda, and Kishtwar continue to face serious connectivity challenges, particularly during winter months. Access to hospitals, educational institutions, and essential supplies remains uncertain in these areas. Railway connectivity could make a meaningful difference there, yet these regions continue to wait. In contrast, the Kashmir Valley, which already has basic transport networks, is being pushed towards another large infrastructure project.
This raises a legitimate concern about intent. Many residents feel that the project is less about improving mobility and more about managing land and movement. Railway lines often bring fencing and long-term restrictions. Villages can become physically divided, and daily movement that was once natural becomes regulated. Such changes alter the social fabric of rural life.
Employment is often cited as a benefit of such projects, especially for local youth. However, experience suggests that much of the construction work is carried out by external contractors who bring labour from other places. Once construction ends, the promised opportunities rarely translate into sustainable livelihoods for locals. This creates disappointment rather than empowerment.
Kashmir does not oppose development. What it questions is development that is introduced without adequate consultation, that places a heavy burden on local communities, and that offers limited local benefit. If development is truly the goal, it should begin where the need is greatest and where people are asking for it. Until then, this railway project risks being seen not as progress, but as an imposition that overlooks the realities of those who live on the land.
Comments are closed.