Fuel for Dissent?
Much water has flown down the Jhelum since the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. There is still no final opinion on whether the central government’s heavy-handed tactic has yielded positive results for the people of J&K. As things stand today, irrespective of what the ground realities have to tell, the central government appears in no mood to budge from its sledgehammer approach. The recent decision by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to ban the Jammu and Kashmir Awami Action Committee (AAC) and the Jammu and Kashmir Ittehadul Muslimeen (JKIM) for five years has sparked strong reactions. The government maintains that these groups incite people, disrupt law and order, and pose a threat to India's unity and integrity. The Union Home Minister has issued a firm warning that anyone involved in activities targeting the nation’s peace and sovereignty would face severe action. The official notification has accused the two groups of promoting secessionist activities, inciting unrest, and supporting terrorism. It also claims that they mobilise funds for unlawful activities. These moves by the government are not novel in nature. Similar crackdowns—many times on unsubstantiated grounds—have been a recurring feature of J&K polity. With the present ban, most Hurriyat Conference constituents have been declared unlawful, leaving only a few groups operating openly.
Understandably, this decision was bound to draw sharp criticism from regional political parties including the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the National Conference (NC). PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti has dubbed the decision to be an attack on Kashmir’s social and political landscape. She has firmly and rightly argued that suppressing voices of dissent will only deepen tensions rather than resolve them. She warned that democracy is not just about elections but also about protecting fundamental rights. The ruling NC leaders, too, have been critical of the central government’s move. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, who heads the AAC, condemned the ban, saying that his organisation has always advocated for the people of Jammu and Kashmir through non-violent and democratic means. He linked the ban to the larger pattern of disempowerment that has been in place since August 2019. Mirwaiz insisted that while the government may suppress voices through force, it cannot silence the truth.
The central government, on the other hand, sees this as a necessary step to curb separatist movements and strengthen national security. Over the years, many of these groups have been accused of receiving support from Pakistan and aiding militancy in Kashmir. By banning them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the government wants to send a strong message that any activities threatening national integrity will not be tolerated. But this approach raises serious concerns about whether such bans will genuinely bring peace to the region or merely stifle legitimate political discourse. Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed decades of unrest, and heavy-handed measures often fuel greater alienation and resentment. The ban on AAC and JKIM may curb certain activities, but it is unlikely to resolve the deeper political and social issues in Kashmir.
A more sustainable path forward would involve meaningful political engagement rather than a relentless cycle of crackdowns and bans. If Kashmir is to see lasting stability, there needs to be space for democratic discourse and reconciliation rather than just sweeping actions that push communities further into discontent. The challenge ahead is to strike a balance between national security and ensuring that the people of Jammu and Kashmir feel heard, rather than silenced.
