India’s Ministry of Home Affairs made an unexpected statement on 11 March 2025 that two prominent Kashmir-based organizations Ban on AAC and JKIM, These Two Parties would withdraw their status under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The move has opened discussions about the issues of security, dissent, and the political future of Kashmir.
But what does this ban mean? Are JKIM and AAC simply connected to the same separatist fabric, or do they represent different parties? Their identities, the justification for the ban and its impact are carefully examined in this article. Be it the situation in Kashmir or the administration’s flexible measures, we have the latest information to answer your questions.
Who Are AAC and JKIM?
The Awami Action Committee (AAC) is nothing new in Kashmir’s violent past. It is currently headed by his son, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, a renowned Islamic scholar and head of the moderate Hurriyat Conference, founded by Mirwaiz Muhammad Farooq in 1964. The AAC combines socio-religious influence with political advocacy, with roots in Srinagar’s Jamia Masjid.
Meanwhile, the Jammu and Kashmir Ittehadul Muslimeen (JKIM) emerged in 1962 under the leadership of Shia scholar Maulana Abbas Ansari. Today, it is led by his son Masroor Abbas Ansari. The JKIM has a legacy linked to the Muslim United Front, which has fostered a distinct Shia voice within Kashmir’s separatist grouping.
Both groups fall under the murky waters of the Hurriyat Conference, a self-determination coalition. Whereas the AAC banks on religious authority through Mirwaiz, JKIM carries a wider ideological stance. They are separate in leadership but not in their end goals—to oppose India’s hold over Kashmir.
This duality, however, makes them different yet interrelated. The government does not treat them separate from each other, but refers to both groups as threats to national unity.
Why Did India Ban AAC and JKIM? The Official Stance
India decided to stop the activities of AAC and JKIM. These two parties are not impressive. On March 11, 2025, the MHA cited their alleged “anti-national activities” as the trigger. Under the UAPA, both were declared illegal for five years, a move that Home Minister Amit Shah described as a “crushing blow” to dissent. Similarly the Indian Government banned Jamaat-i-Islami two times and still the Organization is banned. In the year 2025 after 5-6 months of Assembly Election, India Banned two active parties for their activities. The People and the Political Parties show their anger on this Action.
They have been charged by the government of promoting separatism and helping terrorism. The Hurriyat affiliation of the AAC, which is associated with Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, is accused of inciting instability. Similar accusations against Masroor Abbas Ansari’s JKIM include sponsoring subversive groups and disseminating anti-Indian propaganda.
This ban follows a pattern. Since Article 370’s revocation in 2019, India has targeted separatist groups like Jamaat-e-Islami. The 2024 Assembly elections, won by mainstream parties, signaled a shift—yet the government isn’t taking chances with lingering Hurriyat voices.
Critics question the timing. Was this a preemptive strike against potential unrest, or a message to Kashmir’s moderates? Either way, it’s clear: India’s zero-tolerance policy on separatism remains unshaken.
Ban on AAC and JKIM; A Closer Look
At first glance, AAC and JKIM seem distinct. AAC, born out of the 1964 holy relics agitation, thrives on the religious authority of Mirwaiz. JKIM, which is two years old, has Shia roots and is a legacy of the Muslim United Front. Different leaders, different bases – case closed, right?
Absolutely not. The two are pillars of the Hurriyat Conference, which was formed in 1992 to unite Kashmiri separatist factions. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq heads its moderate wing, in which Masroor Abbas Ansari is a key ally. Their common platform: advocating Kashmir’s right to self-determination.
Practically, they are separate. The AAC holds rallies around Srinagar mosques, while the JKIM’s influence extends to the Shia communities. Yet the bonds of their liberty bind them. India’s complacency overlooks these nuances, treating them as a single threat.
This raises a question: are they separate parties or two faces of the same struggle? The answer lies in the context—India sees a united front, while locals say their distinct roles should be recognized.
Political Fallout: Kashmir’s Leaders React
The ban sparked a firestorm among Kashmir’s political elite. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah distanced himself, saying the decision was the Centre’s alone. “I’m like a unhear on why AAC and JKIM were banned,” he admitted, hinting at unease.
PDP’s Mehbooba Mufti was keen-minded . “This is muscle power, not a healing touch,” she said, questioning why Mirwaiz, given Z+ security, now faces this. She sees it as an “arm-twisting tactic” to crush dissent.
National Conference MP Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi called it “totalitarian,” warning it alienates Kashmiris further. Even JKIM’s Masroor Abbas Ansari decried it as “unjust,” insisting his group is peaceful.
The divide is stark. Pro-India voices like Waqf Board chief Darakhshan Andrabi backed the ban, citing peace. But for many, it’s a step backward—deepening mistrust in a region craving reconciliation.
Social Impact: How the Ban on AAC and JKIM
Beyond politics, the ban reverberates through Kashmir’s social fabric. AAC’s base—Srinagar’s Jamia Masjid—loses its voice. Mirwaiz, under house arrest since March 14, 2025, can’t lead prayers, a blow to religious life during Ramadan.
For locals, this isn’t just political—it’s personal. “Barring Mirwaiz hurts our sentiments,” said Anjuman Auqaf, the mosque’s body. JKIM’s Shia followers feel similarly sidelined, their advocacy stifled.
Alienation is the buzzword. Post-370, Kashmiris have grudgingly embraced elections, but this ban risks undoing that. Young voices on social media echo Iltija Mufti’s outrage: “Vulgar fashion shows are fine, but religious leaders are gagged?”
The streets may stay calm for now, thanks to heavy security. But beneath the surface, resentment simmers—potentially a spark for future unrest.
India’s Strategy: Security or Suppression?
India’s ban on AAC and JKIM fits a broader playbook: neutralize threats, real or perceived. The MHA claims both groups back terrorism, a charge echoed by Amit Shah’s vow to protect “Bharat’s integrity.” UAPA’s use underscores this hardline stance.
Since 2019, stone-pelting has dropped, and tourism has boomed. BJP’s Tarun Chugh credits this to dismantling “Pakistan’s proxies.” The ban, they argue, ensures this progress sticks.
Yet, critics see suppression masked as security. Mirwaiz’s AAC has long pushed dialogue, not violence. Banning it, they say, kills a moderate bridge. JKIM’s peaceful claims get similar shrugs from skeptics.
Is this overreach? Without transparent evidence—specific acts tied to AAC or JKIM—it’s hard to say. For now, India’s betting on control, not compromise.
What’s Next for Kashmir? A Fragile Future
The ban leaves Kashmir at a crossroads. Politically, Hurriyat’s moderate faction is crippled. Mirwaiz, once a dialogue hope, is sidelined. JKIM’s Masroor Abbas Ansari faces the same fate—pushing separatism underground.
Socially, trust erodes. Elections brought hope, but silencing voices like AAC’s risks radicalization. “If moderates are banned, what’s left?” asks PDP’s Waheed Parra. It’s a valid fear—history shows suppression can breed defiance.
India’s next move matters. Will it double down with more bans, or pivot to engagement? For Kashmiris, the stakes are high: peace hangs by a thread, and 2025 could tip it either way.
Conclusion: Ban on AAC and JKIM
India’s ban on AAC and JKIM is a gamble. It signals strength, targeting two Hurriyat linchpins to cement control. Yet, it’s a double-edged sword—quelling dissent now might ignite it later.
AAC and JKIM, separate yet linked, embody Kashmir’s complex struggle. Their ban, effective March 2025, reshapes the region’s narrative. But will it bring stability or sow deeper discord? Only time will tell—stay tuned as Kashmir’s story unfolds.
