(This is Part-II and Part-I can be read here.)
The crushing defeat faced by Jamaat-e-Islami-backed independent candidates in the recent elections is a political loss and a significant moral setback.
The Jamaat, which had ventured into electoral politics as early as 1969 under the framework of the Indian Constitution, now finds itself grappling with an existential crisis.
The 1969 decision to contest elections was a seismic shift, marking a departure from their rigid Islamic ideology and an uneasy acceptance of a secular state.
Guided by the principle that sovereignty belongs solely to Allah, the Jamaat confronted the challenge of operating within a constitutional framework that declared sovereignty rests with the people. This ideological dissonance has been a defining feature of their political journey.
In February 1970, Jamaat’s Shura resolved to contest the Legislative Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir. However, their focus shifted to parliamentary elections, for which they fielded candidates in four Muslim-majority constituencies.
One candidate was disqualified for aligning with the Plebiscite Front, and ultimately, the Jamaat lost all contested seats. Their first significant breakthrough came in the 1972 Legislative Assembly elections, where they fielded 22 candidates and won five seats, securing over 7% of the overall vote and more than 23% in the winning constituencies. Yet, many candidates fared poorly, with nine forfeiting their deposits.
Despite mixed results, the Jamaat viewed electoral participation as a means to advance their moral agenda. Once in the Assembly, they championed what they called “moral politics,” proposing bills to enforce Islamic principles, including a prohibition on alcohol. They also took bold political stances, frequently raising the Kashmir dispute and protesting the state’s militaristic policies.
The 1972 elections also reshaped Jammu and Kashmir’s political landscape, paving the way for the 1975 Kashmir Accord between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Abdullah. Abdullah’s return to power as chief minister marked a turning point, as he saw Jamaat as a direct threat to his authority.
During the nationwide Emergency declared by Indira Gandhi in 1975, Abdullah extended its provisions to Jammu and Kashmir, leading to a severe crackdown on Jamaat. Its leaders were arrested, schools closed, publications banned, and its political aspirations crushed.
Post-Emergency, Jamaat contested the 1977 elections but faced another defeat, with only Syed Ali Shah Geelani retaining his seat. By 1983, even this foothold was lost. The 1987 Legislative Assembly elections proved pivotal.
Despite growing Islamist movements inspired by the Iranian Revolution and the Afghan Jihad, the regime ensured the defeat of the Muslim United Front (MUF), a coalition led by Jamaat. The fallout from these elections had far-reaching consequences.
One of the candidates from the Jamaat in the 1987 elections, Syed Salahuddin, later became the Chief of Hizbul Mujahideen and the United Jihad Council. Another candidate, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, emerged as a leader of a faction within the All Parties Hurriyat Conference.
Geelani was widely regarded as a prominent figure of radical resistance. For decades, Jamaat-e-Islami, an Islamist social-religious organization, has steadfastly rejected India’s rule over Kashmir.
Jamaat has long rejected India’s rule over Kashmir. This resistance was met with intensified crackdowns, especially after August 2019, when Jammu and Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status was revoked, and the region was reorganized into federally administered territories.
Since the 2019 ban on Jamaat, over 300 of its leaders and activists have been arrested, and its properties confiscated. This ban was extended for another five years in February 2024 and upheld by the Delhi High Court Tribunal in October.
In the 2024 Assembly elections, Jamaat-backed independent candidates were decisively defeated. Their campaign rhetoric, such as framing contests as a battle between “Communism vs Islam,” reduced Kashmir’s complex struggles to oversimplified binaries, ignoring deeper issues of occupation, identity, and sovereignty.
The decision to contest elections appeared less about ideological conviction and more about lifting the ban on the organization—a move that alienated much of its cadre. Many within the Jamaat viewed this as a betrayal of its original mission and principles.
Statements by Jamaat leaders, such as attributing militancy in Kashmir to the rigging of the 1987 elections, reflect a selective and distorted narrative.
The Jamaat itself laid the ideological foundation for the armed struggle, and its current approach signals a departure from its earlier vision. Thousands who sacrificed their lives for the Jamaat’s vision of resistance and justice now see their cause diluted by political expediency.
The organization’s participation in this election revealed its growing irrelevance and ideological drift.
What was once a movement committed to establishing a divine order now appears to have succumbed to political opportunism, eroding its foundational ideals. This transformation is not just a loss for the Jamaat but a disillusionment for those who believed in its vision of justice, equality, and faith-driven governance.
If Jamaat’s participation in this election was meant to signal a return to relevance, it has only revealed how irrelevant they have become. It only exposes how far they have strayed from their original purpose. What was once a movement driven by the cause of the establishment of divine order—has now been sacrificed at the altar of political opportunism.
(The article has only two parts. Previously, it was described as three part write-up)
Have you liked the news article?