The Unyielding Spirit of Hurriyat: Why Kashmir’s Resistance Defies India’s Narrative of Normalcy
Altaf Hussain Wani
For decades, the Indian state has framed its policy in Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir as a battle against “terrorism,” a euphemism for suppressing the region’s longstanding demand for self-determination. Since 2019, when New Delhi unilaterally revoked Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status under Article 370, the rhetoric has intensified. Home Minister Amit Shah routinely declares that the “era of stone-pelting is over” and that “normalcy” has returned to the region. Yet, these claims crumble under scrutiny. The reality is that India’s strategy—a mix of military repression, constitutional overreach, and the criminalization of dissent—has not extinguished the political consciousness of Kashmiris. The Hurriyat Conference (APHC), despite the incarceration of its leaders and the state’s relentless coercion, remains a symbol of resistance. Its ethos persists not because of institutional power, but because it is woven into the collective memory of a people whose aspirations for dignity and agency remain unaddressed.
The Crushing of Dissent: Hurriyat Leaders and the Illusion of “Peace”
Today, the APHC—a coalition of groups advocating for Kashmiri self-determination—exists in a state of enforced silence. Its frontline leaders, such as Yasin Malik (sentenced to life imprisonment in 2022), Shabbir Shah, Massrat Alam Butt, Nayeem Ahmed Khan, Asiya Andrabi and others, languish in jails under charges widely criticized as politically motivated. The deaths of Syed Ali Shah Geelani (2021) and Muhammad Ashraf Sehrai (2022), and Moulana Abass Ansari (2024) the three iconic resistance figures, and the continued house arrest of Mirwaiz Umar Farooq since 2019, reflect a systematic effort to decapitate the movement. Meanwhile, New Delhi promotes a narrative of “participation” by showcasing proxy politicians and low-tier electoral engagements as proof of(UAPA)that permit incarceration without trial. The state’s “constitutional terrorism”—a term used by Kashmiri activists to describe the legal erasure of their political identity—has not converted Kashmiris into willing Indian citizens. Instead, it has deepened alienation.
History’s Lesson: Submission Breeds Irrelevance
India’s playbook in Kashmir is not new. It mirrors past attempts to co-opt leaders into endorsing New Delhi’s authority, only to see their legitimacy evaporate. The most telling example is Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the “Lion of Kashmir,” who led the region’s accession to India in 1947 but later demanded self-determination. After years of imprisonment, he struck a deal in 1975, becoming Chief Minister under India’s terms. While he retained power, his influence waned; Kashmiris viewed him as a compromised figure. Similarly, the late Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, founder of the PDP, gained temporary popularity by positioning himself as a “soft separatist” but lost credibility after allying with the BJP in 2015.
These examples underscore a pattern: leaders who abandon the core demand for self-determination—whether coerced or enticed—are seen as collaborators. Their authority, derived from India’s machinery of power, lacks the moral legitimacy that resistance confers.
The Resilience of Resistance: From Stones to Silence
India’s claim that Kashmiris have “moved on” is belied by their own historical amnesia. The 1987 election rigging, which denied the Muslim United Front (MUF) its rightful victory, transformed peaceful political activism into an armed struggle. Similarly, the 2008 uprising over land transfers to Hindu pilgrims, the 2010 protests against fake encounters, and the 2016 mass mobilization after Burhan Wani’s killing reveal a recurring truth: repression fuels resistance.
Even today, Kashmiris navigate dissent in subtler forms. The boycott of India’s parliamentary and assembly elections—evidenced by record-low turnouts in 2019 (under 10% in Srinagar) and a muted response to the 2023 local polls—is a political statement. And a relatively high turnout out in 2024 parliamentary and assembly elections that saw BJP failing to gain its desired outcome.Voting is not seen as participation but as capitulation; staying away becomes an act of defiance. As Kashmiri academic Sheikh Showkat Hussain noted, “The ballot box here is viewed as a tool of occupation.” But at the same time they use it as tool against oppressor.
Hurriyat’s Legacy: Resistance as Identity
The APHC’s significance lies not in its organizational strength but in its embodiment of a collective refusal to surrender. Syed Ali Shah Geelani, even under house arrest until his death, remained a moral compass precisely because he rejected compromise. His funeral—swiftly seized by authorities to prevent mass gatherings—became a metaphor for India’s fear of his enduring influence. Similarly, the Mirwaiz, a spiritual leader and APHC moderate, retains relevance despite being silenced, illustrating that Kashmiri resistance transcends factionalism.
This resilience is rooted in generational trauma. The mass graves, enforced disappearances, and everyday humiliations under militarization are not forgotten. As writer Arundhati Roy observed, “There is a people here, and they do not forget.” The APHC’s ideology, flawed and fragmented as it may be, channels this memory.
India’s Dead End: The Futility of Repression
New Delhi’s current strategy—military dominance coupled with developmentalist propaganda—mirrors failed counterinsurgency models worldwide. Israel’s occupation of Palestine and Russia’s grip on Chechnya demonstrate that physical control cannot erase national identity. In Kashmir, the state’s narrative of “normalcy” clashes with lived realities: internet shutdowns, a censored press, and a youth population radicalized not by ideology but by lived injustice.
The 2019 constitutional changes, far from securing Kashmir’s integration, have intensified demands for accountability. International scrutiny, though inconsistent, persists; the UN Human Rights Commissioner and other International organizations continue to highlight abuses.
The Hurriyat Conference’s future is precarious, yet its ethos endures. India’s repression has dismantled its structure but not its symbolism. The movement survives in the quiet defiance of students, artists, and ordinary Kashmiris who refuse to legitimize occupation. It thrives in the global Kashmiri diaspora’s advocacy and in the younger generation’s reimagining of resistance through art and digital activism.
History offers a warning to New Delhi: no military or legal maneuver has ever extinguished a people’s quest for self-determination. From Ireland to East Timor, freedom movements have outlasted empires. In Kashmir, the Hurriyat’s flame flickers not because of its leaders but because the people keep it alive. Until India addresses the root cause—the denial of Kashmiri agency—its claims of “normalcy” will ring hollow. The silence in Kashmir today is not surrender; it is the calm before another storm.
As long as graves dot the villages of Kupwara and memories of crackdowns haunt the alleys of Srinagar, the sentiment of Hurriyat will endure. Resistance, in Kashmir, is not a choice—it is inheritance
Writer is chairman of Islamabad Based Think tank Kashmir Institute of International Relations ( KIIR)
