The central issue concerning drug abuse in Kashmir is not simply whether the government has policies or institutions, but whether these policies are being translated at ground level. The increase in people entering government-supported treatment is significant, but admissions, detoxification, and discharge numbers cannot be the sole indicators of success.
Drug abuse remains a serious concern in Kashmir, particularly among young people, with healthcare professionals pointing to increasing availability of drugs due to Kashmir’s geography, peer influence, and wider social and economic pressures as key drivers of the problem. “At present, every house is involved in drug abuse. It’s a ghar, ghar ki kahani (the tale of every house in Kashmir),” said Dr Mushtaq Ahmed Rather, Director Health Services Kashmir, while addressing a press conference in Srinagar on the occasion of the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking.
“Availability and accessibility of these drugs have become the biggest accelerator,” said a psychiatrist working at a hospital in Anantnag, pointing out the problem of drugs being trafficked across borders and being sold to the youth of Kashmir at a low cost. He also identified people aged 18 to 25 as the most affected group. “At the same time, unemployment, novelty-seeking behaviour, mental health difficulties, prolonged social stress, exposure to conflict and uncertainty, and family problems have been identified as other major causes of increasing drug abuse in Kashmir,” he added.
The government has expanded its response, but the scale of treatment activity also raises a more difficult question about whether institutional capacity is keeping pace with demand. In a written reply to a Rajya Sabha MP, the Union Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment, B.L. Verma, stated that the number of people treated for drug addiction in centres supported by the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment in Jammu and Kashmir increased from 5,382 in 2021–22 to 46,491 in 2025–26. The government currently supports one Integrated Rehabilitation Centre for Addicts, three Outreach and Drop-In Centres, two Community-Based Peer-Led Intervention programmes, six District De-Addiction Centres and 21 Addiction Treatment Facilities in the Union Territory. Under the Nasha Mukt Bharat Abhiyaan, more than 1.20 crore people have reportedly been sensitised so far.
These figures demonstrate government activity, but they do not by themselves establish whether treatment capacity is adequate or whether patients are achieving sustained recovery. “Inadequate manpower also makes it difficult to provide individualized treatment plans,” said a therapist working at the SMHS Hospital, Srinagar, on the condition of anonymity, emphasizing that treatment therefore becomes more detoxification-oriented rather than recovery-oriented. Addiction treatment requires psychological assessment, individual and family counselling, relapse-prevention work, social rehabilitation, vocational support and sustained follow-up.“There is a need for a broader service package including vocational training, educational continuation, employment, family counseling, halfway homes, peer influence group, etc,” said the psychiatrist who is stationed at Anantnag. He further argued that such services should also be available at district and tehsil levels rather than concentrated only in major urban centres.
Specialist professionals and structured rehabilitation services remain concentrated in urban centres like Srinagar, while patients from peripheral and rural areas may have to travel considerable distances for assessment, treatment and follow-up. “District-level and peripheral services should be strengthened so that patients can receive assessment, treatment and follow-up closer to their homes,” said the therapist at SMHS Hospital, Srinagar. This has another governance consequence. Where districts have limited hospitals, rehabilitation facilities, or specialist personnel, people who require treatment may never appear in treatment or registration data. Fewer registered patients in an underserved area cannot be automatically interpreted as fewer people requiring care.
Adding to the issue is the rising cost of treatment. “Affordability adds another barrier,” Dr. Muzaffar, Director General of Aghaaz De-addiction Centre, told TheRise. He further argued that the state should fund de-addiction and rehabilitation for lower-income families who cannot afford treatment. “Recovery should not become a service determined by a family’s ability to pay,” he added. Dr. Muzaffar has also identified administrative delays as an important obstacle to the functioning and expansion of services.
The central issue is not simply whether the government has policies or institutions, but whether these policies are being translated at ground level. The increase in people entering government-supported treatment is significant, but admissions, detoxification, and discharge numbers cannot be the sole indicators of success. To strengthen the governance system, Dr. Muzaffar told TheRise that “there is a need for a dedicated institutional window through which families facing a serious addiction-related situation can seek formal assistance when an affected person refuses treatment. Such a mechanism could give families an established route to seek help rather than leaving them to manage severe cases alone.”
Further, rehabilitation should not be treated as just an endpoint of detoxification but rather as a longer process of rebuilding a person’s life. Young people undergoing rehabilitation should not be pushed permanently out of the system. A formal policy could allow students in treatment to remain enrolled, with reasonable academic flexibility, counselling and alternative skill or vocational programmes during rehabilitation, followed by structured reintegration into education.
What is required is a rehabilitation system capable of reaching people before they disappear from the formal healthcare system, providing multidisciplinary care during treatment, and supporting them long after detoxification. The measure of success, therefore, is not how many people enter treatment, but how many are given a real chance to rebuild their lives
(Sadiya Suhail Majid is a TRIP intern.)