 |
|
The recent ban on the Awami Action Committee (AAC) and Ittihadul Muslimeen, prominent members of the Mirwaiz Umar Farooq-led moderate faction of the Hurriyat Conference, has cast a pall over the already fragile prospects for dialogue and reconciliation in the Kashmir Valley. This move, implemented under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), is widely perceived as a setback to any lingering expectations that the central government in New Delhi was genuinely interested in maintaining open channels of communication with separatist elements. The timing of the ban, following closely on the heels of Mirwaiz's 10-day visit to Delhi, where he engaged in political meetings across a broad spectrum, adds to the sense of disillusionment and raises serious questions about the Centre's long-term strategy for the region. The seemingly contradictory signals emanating from the government – on one hand, the restoration of security cover to Mirwaiz, a gesture noted even by former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, and on the other hand, the abrupt imposition of a ban on organizations closely associated with him – have fueled speculation about the underlying motives and the potential implications for the future of Kashmir's political landscape. The ban itself carries significant weight, considering the historical significance and the long-standing presence of both the AAC and Ittihadul Muslimeen in Kashmir politics. These organizations have been active for over six decades, navigating the complex and often turbulent currents of the region's socio-political environment. The Union Home Ministry's justification for the ban, citing their alleged involvement in "anti-national and subversive activities," has been met with skepticism and criticism, particularly in the absence of concrete evidence or transparency. The lack of consultation with the elected government in Jammu and Kashmir, as highlighted by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, further underscores the concerns about the Centre's unilateral approach and its potential to alienate the local population. Abdullah's statement that the Centre did not share any intelligence warranting the ban, and his principled opposition to such decisions, reflects a growing unease among mainstream political parties in the region about the erosion of democratic norms and the increasing reliance on heavy-handed security measures. The ban on the AAC, in particular, is seen as a direct blow to Mirwaiz Umar Farooq's political activities and influence. The organization, founded by his father, Mirwaiz Mohammad Farooq, in 1964, has been an integral part of his identity and his role as a prominent religious and political leader in the Valley. The government's repeated attempts to confine Mirwaiz to purely religious matters, restricting his freedom to deliver sermons at Srinagar's Jamia Masjid, further suggest a deliberate effort to curtail his political voice and limit his ability to engage with the broader Kashmiri population. This approach, characterized by a combination of selective engagement and restrictive measures, has created an atmosphere of uncertainty and mistrust, making it increasingly difficult to foster meaningful dialogue or build bridges between the government and the people of Kashmir.
The ban on the AAC and Ittihadul Muslimeen represents a departure from the Centre's policy in recent years, which had generally avoided such sweeping measures against political organizations in Kashmir. While several other separatist outfits, including the Jamaat-e-Islami, JKLF, Muslim League, Democratic Freedom Party, and Dukhtaran-e-Millat, have already been proscribed, the Mirwaiz-led Hurriyat faction has historically maintained a distinct position, advocating for dialogue and engaging in talks with the Centre under both NDA and UPA governments. This emphasis on peaceful resolution and engagement has set them apart from more hardline separatist groups and has positioned them as potential interlocutors in any future peace process. The irony of the situation is further underscored by the fact that a faction of the Jamaat-e-Islami, an organization already banned, was allowed to contest last year's Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir, apparently with the approval of the Centre. This apparent inconsistency raises questions about the government's criteria for determining which organizations are deemed acceptable and which are considered a threat to national security. The Awami Action Committee, from its inception, has played a significant role in Kashmir's political landscape. Founded by the late Mirwaiz Mohammad Farooq during a period of intense unrest, the organization emerged as a prominent voice for the Kashmiri people and a key opposition force to the National Conference, particularly in Srinagar's Old City, the traditional stronghold of the Mirwaiz family. While its influence remained largely confined to Srinagar district, the AAC served as a crucial platform for articulating Kashmiri aspirations and advocating for their rights. Following the assassination of Mirwaiz Mohammad Farooq in 1990, his son, Umar Farooq, inherited the mantle of leadership at the young age of 17, assuming both the hereditary Mirwaiz post and the reins of the Awami Action Committee. In 1992, when the Hurriyat Conference was formed as a separatist conglomerate, the AAC became a founding member, with Mirwaiz Umar Farooq serving as its inaugural chairman. This underscores the AAC's pivotal role in the formation and evolution of the separatist movement in Kashmir.
In response to the ban on the AAC, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq condemned the move as a "continuation of the policy of intimidation and disempowerment" that has been pursued since August 2019, when the Centre unilaterally revoked Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special status. He emphasized that the AAC has consistently advocated for the rights and aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir through non-violent and democratic means, calling for a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir conflict through dialogue and deliberation. He also highlighted the sacrifices made by AAC members, who have endured imprisonment, incarceration, and even martyrdom in their pursuit of these goals. The Ittihadul Muslimeen, the other organization targeted by the ban, was founded in 1962 by Shia cleric Maulana Abbas Ansari, with the aim of fostering unity among the diverse Muslim sects in the region. Ansari played a key role in the formation of the Muslim United Front (MUF) in 1987, a coalition of political, social, and religious organizations that contested the elections against the National Conference-Congress alliance. The widespread rigging that marred these elections is widely regarded as a catalyst for the eruption of militancy in the Valley. The Ittihadul Muslimeen also became a constituent member of the Hurriyat Conference in 1992, and Ansari served as its chairman from 2003, during which time the Hurriyat engaged in talks with the Centre for the first time. After stepping down as chairman in 2004, following a split within the Hurriyat, Ansari remained a prominent figure in Kashmir politics until his death in 2022. His son, Masroor Abbas, has since taken over the leadership of the Ittihadul Muslimeen, which remains one of the most influential Shia political and social organizations in the Valley. Masroor Abbas has also condemned the ban, calling it "unjustified and unfair" and asserting that it will not solve the problems of Kashmir. He reiterated the organization's commitment to advocating for the rights and aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir through peaceful and democratic means.
The ban has also drawn criticism from opposition parties in Jammu and Kashmir. PDP leader Waheed Para raised the issue in the Assembly, demanding a discussion and seeking the revocation of the decision. PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti described the ban as "another blow to Kashmir's social and political landscape," warning that suppressing dissent would only deepen tensions rather than resolve them. She also criticized the Omar Abdullah-led NC government for its perceived lack of resistance to the Centre's policies, accusing it of prioritizing its relationship with the Centre over the interests of the Kashmiri people. Mufti's statement reflects the ongoing political tensions between the PDP and the NC, two of the main regional parties in Jammu and Kashmir, and highlights the challenges of forging a united front against the Centre's policies. The ban on the AAC and Ittihadul Muslimeen represents a significant escalation in the Centre's approach to Kashmir, signaling a renewed emphasis on security measures and a diminished willingness to engage with moderate separatist voices. This move is likely to further alienate the Kashmiri population and exacerbate the already deep-seated sense of grievance and resentment. The long-term consequences of this policy shift remain to be seen, but it is clear that the prospects for dialogue and reconciliation in Kashmir have suffered a significant setback. The government's actions raise fundamental questions about its commitment to democratic principles and its willingness to address the underlying political issues that continue to fuel unrest and instability in the region. Unless a more inclusive and participatory approach is adopted, the cycle of violence and alienation is likely to persist, undermining the long-term peace and stability of Jammu and Kashmir. The ban, therefore, represents a critical juncture in the ongoing conflict, with the potential to either pave the way for a renewed effort towards dialogue and reconciliation or further entrench the divisions and deepen the sense of despair that has plagued the region for decades. The path forward requires a fundamental shift in approach, one that prioritizes dialogue, engagement, and respect for the rights and aspirations of the Kashmiri people.
Source: Ban on Hurriyat outfits dims glimmer of hope about talks after Mirwaiz’s Delhi visit