Barred from Jama Masjid, Mirwaiz’s online sermon calls for ‘dialogue on Kashmir’

The recent incident involving Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, the chairman of the moderate faction of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), being barred from leading Friday prayers at Srinagar's historic Jama Masjid, yet delivering an online sermon advocating for 'dialogue on the Kashmir conflict,' is profoundly significant for understanding the complex political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). His assertion that the 'unilateral changes in 2019' – referring to the abrogation of Article 370 and 35A – have not brought stability, and the region remains in an 'unsettled state,' directly challenges the Indian government's narrative of normalcy and development.

To truly grasp this event, one must delve into its historical background. Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India in 1947 under contentious circumstances, leading to the incorporation of Article 370 into the Indian Constitution, granting it special autonomous status. This article allowed J&K to have its own constitution, flag, and limited the applicability of Indian parliamentary laws. Article 35A, introduced through a Presidential Order in 1954, further empowered the J&K legislature to define 'permanent residents' and grant them special rights and privileges. Over the decades, the special status became a point of contention, with some viewing it as a bridge between J&K and India, while others saw it as an impediment to full integration and a source of separatism. The Hurriyat Conference, formed in 1993, emerged as an umbrella organization of various political, social, and religious groups in Kashmir, advocating for self-determination and often engaging in dialogue with both the Indian government and Pakistan. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, inheriting a spiritual and political lineage, has long been a prominent voice, often advocating for a peaceful resolution through dialogue.

On August 5, 2019, the Indian government, through Presidential Order C.O. 272 (The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019), effectively abrogated Article 370, making all provisions of the Indian Constitution applicable to J&K. Simultaneously, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir (with a legislature) and Ladakh (without a legislature). This monumental decision was accompanied by a significant security crackdown, communication blackouts, and the detention of political leaders, including Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, who was under house arrest for over four years until his recent partial release.

Key stakeholders in this ongoing narrative include the **Indian Government**, whose primary objective is the complete integration of J&K, fostering economic development, combating terrorism, and establishing lasting peace. They view the 2019 changes as a corrective measure to historical anomalies and a step towards bringing J&K into the national mainstream. **Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and the APHC** represent a significant segment of Kashmiri political and religious opinion, advocating for political resolution and addressing the 'Kashmir conflict' through dialogue. Their recent activities, even online, underscore their continued relevance and the persistent demand for political space. Most importantly, the **people of Jammu and Kashmir** are the central stakeholders, directly impacted by policy changes, security measures, economic shifts, and the overall political climate. Their aspirations for peace, dignity, and a secure future are paramount.

This situation matters immensely for India. From an **internal security** perspective, the perception of an 'unsettled state' can fuel militancy and separatism, demanding continuous resource allocation for security forces. For **democracy and federalism**, the manner of Article 370's abrogation and the restrictions on political activity have raised questions about due process and the health of India's federal structure. Mirwaiz's barring from public religious duties touches upon **fundamental rights**, specifically freedom of speech and expression (Article 19) and freedom of conscience and religion (Article 25). The demand for dialogue signals a need for political engagement beyond administrative measures and elections. Furthermore, the stability of J&K has direct implications for **India's international relations**, particularly with Pakistan, and for regional stability in South Asia. The government's vision of development and normalcy must translate into tangible improvements and address the grievances of the local population to ensure long-term peace and integration. The future implications point towards a critical juncture: while the government is keen on holding elections and restoring statehood, the call for 'dialogue' from a prominent Kashmiri leader suggests that a purely administrative or developmental approach might not suffice to address the deep-seated political issues. A comprehensive political process, involving all stakeholders and addressing historical grievances, remains crucial for achieving genuine reconciliation and lasting peace in J&K.