On September 19 and 20, 2025, the ongoing struggle over the future of Jammu and Kashmir once again took center stage, with developments that underscored the deep divisions, competing narratives, and persistent human cost of the conflict. From Delhi’s tribunals upholding bans on major separatist groups to diaspora leaders rallying support abroad, and voices from Pakistan-occupied Jammu Kashmir (PoJK) demanding self-determination, the week’s events painted a complex picture of a region at the crossroads of history and geopolitics.
In New Delhi, two tribunals under the Delhi High Court delivered a significant verdict: upholding the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) ban on the Awami Action Committee (AAC), led by influential cleric Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, and the Jammu and Kashmir Ittihadul Muslimeen (JKIM), headed by Masroor Abbas Ansari. According to ETV Bharat, the tribunals, both presided over by Justice Sachin Datta, found “ample justification to declare the two groups as unlawful associations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.”
The MHA had originally imposed the ban on March 11, 2025, alleging that both organisations were engaged in “unlawful activities that were prejudicial to the integrity, sovereignty and security of the country.” The AAC, founded in 1964 by the late Moulvi Mohammad Farooq, has long advocated for Kashmiri self-determination and, according to the government’s background note, “has been actively engaged in carrying out secessionist and separatist activities, targeting the sovereignty of India.” The note further accused Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and his associates of supporting terrorists, maintaining cross-border ties with Pakistan, and mobilizing anti-India protests.
In a detailed account, the MHA described how Mirwaiz Umar allegedly “paid tributes to Abu Qasim, a Lashkar-e-Taiba Commander,” and called for shutdowns and protests on the anniversaries of executed militants such as Afzal Guru and Maqbool Butt. The government also cited criminal cases against AAC activists, including charges of sedition, conspiracy, and providing logistical support to terrorists. Justice Datta’s tribunal, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that “there is sufficient cause for declaring the organisation as an unlawful association under Section 3(1) of the UAPA.”
The JKIM, founded in 1962 by Abbas Ansari and now led by his son Masroor Abbas Ansari, was similarly targeted. The MHA labeled it a “Pakistan-backed separatist organisation” that has “given impetus to the Pakistani narrative of propagating hatred and disaffection among the public of Jammu and Kashmir against the Indian state.” The government’s background note also accused JKIM of inciting youth violence, boycotting elections, and glorifying slain militants. The tribunal’s confirmation of the ban, published in the official gazette, emphasized the group’s “complicity in criminal and anti-national activities.”
While the Indian government frames these bans as a necessary step to preserve national security and curb terrorism, critics argue that such measures risk silencing legitimate political dissent and further alienating sections of the Kashmiri population. The government’s narrative, as outlined in the tribunal’s orders, leaves little room for the separatist groups’ perspectives, focusing instead on their alleged links to Pakistan and their role in fomenting unrest.
Meanwhile, in Islamabad, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) – Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) chapter held a ceremony on September 19, attended by prominent Hurriyat leaders and media. According to Kashmir Media Service, the event was presided over by senior Hurriyat leader Mahmood Ahmed Saghar, who described the people of occupied Jammu and Kashmir as “victims of the worst Indian state oppression, forced arrests, and human rights violations.” Saghar went so far as to call the region “a torture chamber,” lamenting that despite Pakistan’s diplomatic successes, including a recent agreement with Saudi Arabia, “the dire situation in occupied Kashmir remains in place and the international community must play a serious role for permanent settlement of the Kashmir dispute.”
Syed Yousuf Naseem, another key speaker, emphasized the vital role played by the Kashmiri diaspora in advocating for the region’s right to self-determination. He singled out Ms Saima Suleman and Khwaja Suleman as “shining examples of this struggle,” noting Ms Suleman’s efforts to highlight the plight of Kashmiri women in the UK and Europe. Naseem remarked that “Kashmiri women sacrificed their lives, lost their sons and brothers, and are still enduring the hardships of imprisonment.”
Khwaja Suleman, for his part, asserted that the sacrifices of the Kashmiri people “will not go waste under any circumstances and Kashmir will definitely be freed and will become a part of Pakistan.” Ms Saima Suleman, describing herself as “a daughter of Kashmir,” said she had participated in the freedom movement since childhood and expressed optimism that “the day is not far when the Kashmiri people will be freed from the slavery of India.” The event gathered a host of Hurriyat leaders and journalists, reinforcing the message that the struggle for Kashmir’s future continues both at home and abroad.
Yet, the voices from Pakistan-occupied Jammu Kashmir (PoJK) revealed a different set of grievances and aspirations. Shaukat Ali Kashmiri, Chairman of the United Kashmir People’s National Party (UKPNP), released a video statement on September 20, in which he condemned what he described as “a renewed wave of propaganda launched by Pakistan against the party,” as reported by ANI. Kashmiri argued that such smear campaigns have long been used to silence those advocating for self-determination and democratic rights in PoJK. Drawing on history, he referenced Lenin’s observations about propaganda as a tool of ruling classes, and criticized Pakistan for using PoJK “for strategic purposes, often glorifying divisive figures and ignoring the consequences for local communities.”
Shaukat Ali Kashmiri also shone a light on the daily hardships faced by residents of PoJK, citing “lack of access to basic healthcare, poor infrastructure, and declining education standards” as evidence of governance failures. He lamented that these real issues are “consistently overshadowed by political rhetoric and religious nationalism.” His solution? A call for “self-accountability and political awakening among citizens of PoJK,” declaring, “Those who wear the chains must be the ones to break them.” He urged unity and a renewed commitment to building a peaceful, self-determined Kashmir, insisting that the struggle must be led by the people themselves.
These divergent perspectives—Indian authorities’ security-driven crackdowns, diaspora-led advocacy for self-determination, and local demands for democratic rights—underscore the complexity of the Kashmir issue. Each side frames the conflict in its own terms: as a fight against terrorism, as a struggle for freedom, or as a quest for basic rights and good governance. The international community, meanwhile, is repeatedly called upon to intervene, but a durable solution remains elusive.
As the events of this week demonstrate, the story of Kashmir is far from settled. The bans, ceremonies, and public appeals serve as reminders of a region where history, politics, and human aspiration collide—and where, for now, the voices on all sides continue to seek justice, recognition, and peace.
