The Afghan period in Kashmir, stretching from 1752 to 1819, occupies a dark and deeply remembered place in Kashmiri historical memory. Known in local recollection as Dour-e-Afghan, these nearly seven decades are often associated with heavy taxation, political instability, harsh governance and widespread suffering among ordinary people. Yet understanding this era requires moving beyond inherited emotion and examining how Afghan authority entered Kashmir, how it governed, and why this period became synonymous with fear in many historical accounts.
Afghan rule in Kashmir began during the expansion of the Durrani Empire under Ahmad Shah Durrani, also known as Ahmad Shah Abdali. By the mid-eighteenth century, Mughal authority in Kashmir had weakened considerably. Administrative decay, factional rivalry and declining imperial power created conditions that allowed external forces to intervene. In 1752, Afghan forces entered Kashmir and incorporated it into the Durrani Empire, ending centuries of Mughal control.
The Afghan rulers themselves rarely governed Kashmir directly. Instead, power was exercised through appointed governors, commonly known as subedars. Over the following decades, numerous governors administered the Valley, and their reputations varied considerably. Some attempted administrative control and revenue organization, while others became notorious in historical memory for extortion and cruelty.
Haji Karim Dad Khan and Rapacious Taxation (1777–1783)
Among Afghan governors, Haji Karim Dad Khan is repeatedly described in historical writings as one of the harshest administrators. Chroniclers and historians mention his aggressive taxation system and revenue extraction. He imposed multiple levies upon traders, jagirdars and peasants, placing severe pressure upon the economy. Some accounts note that peasants, unable to bear taxes on orchards and produce, cut fruit trees and sold them as firewood to escape revenue demands
One of the most defining characteristics of Afghan rule was revenue extraction. Kashmir, famous for its fertile land, shawl industry and strategic position, became a source of income for the Durrani state. Land revenue demands placed immense pressure on cultivators. Peasants faced repeated taxation and, according to several chroniclers, often found themselves trapped between local officials and distant imperial demands.
Historical writings describe how taxation frequently extended beyond normal agricultural dues. Officials imposed additional levies and extracted payments through coercive methods. Farmers, artisans and traders carried the burden of maintaining a political system whose priorities lay more in revenue collection than local welfare.
Read: How Mughal Emperor Zahiruddin Babar Viewed Hindustan
The shawl industry, which had already earned Kashmir international fame, became both an economic asset and a source of hardship. Kashmiri shawls enjoyed high demand in Central Asian and Persian markets, making shawl workers and merchants important contributors to state revenue. However, artisans themselves often remained poor. Taxes and intermediary exploitation ensured that wealth generated by labor did not necessarily improve the condition of those producing it.
Accounts from Persian chronicles and later historians frequently portray Afghan administration as unstable and at times violent. Kashmir witnessed repeated changes of governors, and with each change came uncertainty. Rivalries among officials and struggles for influence occasionally turned governance into competition for wealth and authority rather than orderly administration.
Migration and Deserted Settlements
Several historical accounts and European travelers writing after Afghan rule describe depopulation and migration from Kashmir during parts of the Afghan period. According to later observations cited in scholarship, villages and local settlements were abandoned and many people moved toward Punjab and surrounding regions seeking safety and livelihood.
Among the governors whose names appear prominently in Kashmiri memory is Azad Khan. Historical narratives often associate his administration with harsh methods and disorder. Other governors also acquired reputations for oppressive conduct, though historians caution that contemporary chronicles sometimes reflected political loyalties and personal grievances.
Nevertheless, a recurring theme across many sources is the vulnerability of ordinary Kashmiris under Afghan administration. Punishments could be severe, and accusations of arbitrary violence appear repeatedly in historical literature. Stories of executions, intimidation and forced exactions contributed to an atmosphere of insecurity.
The suffering described in historical memory was not limited to economic pressure. Social life too was affected by instability and fear. In times of weak administration or power struggles, law and order deteriorated, exposing rural populations to additional hardship. Villages could face plunder or punitive action, particularly when revenue targets were unmet.
The Afghan period is also remembered for episodes involving the sale or trafficking of people, particularly during times of political upheaval and economic distress. Some historical accounts mention the movement of captives and slaves, though historians continue to debate the scale and regularity of such practices. What remains clear is that insecurity and poverty created conditions in which vulnerable populations suffered deeply.
Surveillance and Suppression of Local Chiefs
Research on Afghan administration notes that the population was kept under close watch. People reportedly faced restrictions on bearing arms and local chiefs or influential groups were suppressed if viewed as politically threatening. Afghan governors relied heavily on coercive administration to maintain authority and secure revenue.
Religious policy under Afghan rule presents a more complex picture. Because the Afghan rulers were Muslim, the period did not involve the kind of religious restrictions later associated by some writers with other administrations. Yet religious commonality did not necessarily translate into social justice or benevolent governance. Many Muslim chroniclers themselves recorded suffering and criticized governors for tyranny and greed.
This distinction is important. Historical memory of Afghan rule in Kashmir is not primarily shaped by sectarian conflict but by experiences of governance, taxation and political instability. Oppression, where documented, was experienced as political and economic domination rather than simply religious persecution.
Despite the prevailing negative memory, Afghan rule was not entirely devoid of administrative structure. Governors maintained systems of revenue collection, military presence and communication with the Durrani court. Trade continued, and Kashmir remained connected to wider economic networks extending toward Central Asia and Afghanistan. Yet these administrative functions rarely translated into popular legitimacy among Kashmiris.
The harsh image of Afghan rule owes much to Kashmiri chroniclers and later historians who documented the period. Writers such as P.N.K. Bamzai and Mohibbul Hasan note that Afghan administration left behind enduring bitterness in local memory. Even later generations used Dour-e-Afghan as a metaphor for suffering and disorder.
However, historians also advise caution against viewing the seventy-year period as entirely uniform. Not all governors ruled identically. Conditions varied across decades, and individual administrators displayed differing levels of competence and severity. Historical reality often resists absolute labels.
By the early nineteenth century, Afghan authority over Kashmir weakened significantly. Internal troubles within the Durrani Empire reduced its ability to maintain firm control over distant territories. This decline created an opportunity for the expanding Sikh kingdom under Maharaja Ranjit Singh.
The Revolt of Azad Khan (1783–1786)
This episode shows how instability extended even within Afghan authority itself. After Karim Dad Khan’s death, Azad Khan assumed power but later rebelled against Kabul, refusing revenue remittance and consolidating authority independently. The rebellion triggered warfare and military confrontation involving Kashmir and neighboring regions before ending violently.
This incident reflects how Kashmir was not merely ruled harshly but also became a battleground for Afghan internal power struggles.
In 1819, Sikh forces entered Kashmir and defeated the Afghan governor, bringing nearly seven decades of Afghan rule to an end. For many Kashmiris exhausted by instability and revenue pressure, the fall of Afghan authority initially appeared as relief. Yet history would soon demonstrate that the end of one difficult period did not necessarily guarantee freedom from hardship.
The Afghan era remains one of the most debated chapters of Kashmiri history. While historians continue to examine sources critically and separate documented fact from later embellishment, the broader picture remains difficult to ignore. Afghan rule became remembered not for prosperity or popular governance but for taxation, insecurity and a political order often experienced as distant and extractive.
For Kashmiris, Dour-e-Afghan survived not merely as a period in textbooks but as a phrase carrying emotional weight — a reminder of how power exercised without accountability can shape collective memory for generations.
Popular Memory of ‘Dour-e-Afghan’
Perhaps the strongest “incident” is not one event but collective memory itself. Later Kashmiri writings and oral memory often used “Dour-e-Afghan” as shorthand for suffering, harsh taxation and insecurity. This is historically significant because few ruling periods became cultural metaphors for hardship.
© Kashmir News Trust (KNT). Unauthorized use without attribution is prohibited.
