Resisting Anti-Intellectualism and the Securitization of Dissent through Academic Repression in India: Insights from Research on Institutional Childcare in Kashmir

In a climate of academic repression in India, undertaking doctoral research on Kashmir constitutes an act of intellectual resistance. As dissent within universities and critical engagement with militarization and state violence are increasingly reframed as threats to national security, selecting Kashmir as a field of inquiry challenges epistemic boundaries that constrain what may be studied and how it may be framed. Researching institutional childcare in this context resists the depoliticization of child protection discourse. Drawing on Johan Galtung’s framework of direct and structural violence, this paper situates the rise of Child Care Institutions (CCIs) within the cumulative effects of killings, enforced disappearances, detention, intimidation, economic marginalization, discriminatory rehabilitation policies that favor certain categories of orphans while excluding others, weakened kinship networks, and chronic insecurity. Institutionalization thus emerges not as a neutral welfare response to poverty but as the outcome of intertwined forms of violence that render families and communities vulnerable and unsafe. The study is based on phenomenological research in Srinagar and Kupwara. It centers retrospective narratives of adult care leavers who grew up in institutional care during armed conflict, alongside insights from CCI functionaries, child protection officials, and civil society representatives. This multi-perspective approach grounds a comprehensive analysis of institutionalization in a conflict zone. Methodological rigor was anchored in a decolonial ethical framework incorporating community ethical review, iterative consent, a participatory justice lens, and deeper safeguarding practices. Ethics was treated as relational rather than procedural. Community interlocutors shaped the scope of inquiry, and individuals repeatedly asked to recount traumatic experiences by prior researchers were excluded to prevent retraumatization. Iterative consent ensured participant control. Safeguarding included pseudonymization, removal of identifying details, secure data handling, and careful attention to interview settings. Findings were shared with participants, and engagement extended beyond fieldwork to reinforce trust and accountability. Positionality as an Indian researcher from a Hindu background in a Muslim majority conflict zone shaped both access and responsibility, with participants emphasizing the obligation to foreground structural injustice. Institutional resistance was evident in the adaptive strategies of CCIs during prolonged curfews and communication blockades. Institutions mobilized local networks, stockpiled essentials, and sustained educational continuity through volunteers, staff instruction, and peer tutoring. Care leavers demonstrated parallel resistance through educational persistence, strategic self-presentation, and reliance on supportive networks. Researching Kashmir thus embodies intellectual, methodological, and institutional resistance within a securitized academic landscape.