In a democratic society, politicians who openly support terrorism are unfit to lead a political party, let alone be entrusted with governing power. Democracy inherently rests on the principles of justice, freedom, and the well-being of its citizens. Advocating or condoning terrorism contradicts these fundamental tenets, as terrorism undermines the very fabric of a peaceful and just society. True representation in a democratic system requires a commitment to condemn terrorism and all its manifestation, as those who support such activities cannot genuinely claim to represent the interests, values and work for the welfare of the people. Granting power to politicians with ties to terrorism poses a significant threat to the democratic ideals that prioritize the safety and prosperity of the populace.
Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti’s recent objection to the dismissal of government employees with terror links reveals their true colours. It is no secrets that Omar and Mehbooba’s politics thrives on innocent’s blood. If there is peace in Kashmir valley, these politicians feel restless and irrelevant. There has been many allegations in the past about their closed-door affairs with terrorist outfits of all shades to gain political advantage. National Conference leader Omar Abdullah voiced support for four government employees terminated by the current administration in Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly, PDP President Mehbooba Mufti took to ‘X’ (formerly known as Twitter) to advocate for these dismissed employees, accusing the administration of unjustly jeopardizing the livelihoods of Kashmiris on what she peddled as false grounds. The stand of the two leaders raises questions about their infatuation to terrorism and its ecosystem and a thorough investigation is required to probe how Kashmiri politicians have used terrorists to further their political capital while their own political cadres were killed by the terror outfits operating from Pakistan.
The outburts of Abdullah and Mufti against dismissal of terror-sympathizers and supporters will surprise many democratic countries in the world. The US house had recently censured one Rep. Rashida Tlaib for praising terror outfit, Hamas. But, Indian state is much more compassionate and though Omar and Mufti not the members of Parliament, but they will definitely get away without any criticism. However, the support to terrorism by both the leaders serves to expose a political agenda entrenched in the region’s history of violence. The infiltration of divisive forces into government departments highlights a larger issue: terrorism is not just a disease but a symptom of political failure in Jammu and Kashmir.
Under the leadership of Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha, the administration identified and dismissed numerous government servants directly or indirectly involved in supporting terrorism. This move aimed to address the root causes that kept terrorism thriving in the region. However, Abdullah’s and Mufti’s, the dynast politicians, have vehemently opposed these dismissals, arguing against policies that punish the relatives of terrorists.
Abdullah’s and Mufti’s reactions highlight the deep-seated political dynamics at play. Abdullah’s & Mehbooba’s personal connection to some of the dismissed employees, appointed during their respective tenure as Chief Minister, may contribute to their stance. Moreover, their resistance aligns with a diversionist politics that seeks to perpetuate unrest and violence, diverting attention from core governance issues. Abdullah during a press briefing even suggested a potential policy review once the administration changes, emphasizing his concern for terrorists and their well-wishers.
The Constitution of India provides the authority to dismiss public servants without inquiry in situations where the disclosure of specific information is deemed contrary to state security interests. Criticisms from political circles are brushed aside as mere political posturing, given the divergence in legal standards between criminal and departmental proceedings. The meticulously crafted provisions in Article 311 were intended to prioritize the nation’s best interests, a point underscored by Dr B.R. Ambedkar during the Constituent Assembly debate. Importantly, a government servant can face proceedings and punishment even if acquitted in a criminal case for the same charge, a principle affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark case R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India & Anr. (AIR 1964 SC 787). No country would permit an individual with allegiance to terrorist groups or their handlers from holding a government office.
In legal and political contexts, loyalty signifies an individual’s steadfast commitment to a nation, be it their nation of birth or the one they have pledged allegiance to through an oath. Interestingly, Gulf Countries take stringent measures, including capital punishment, in such cases, and there is a notable absence of dissent questioning their legal framework. However, in our scenario, these dynast politicians are quick to criticize every government action aimed at countering terrorism, potentially indicating a reluctance to endorse measures that prioritize national security over individual interests.
Against the backdrop of persistent proxy wars and insurgency, the government’s choice to terminate public servants engaged in anti-national activities resonates with the broader national interest. These governmental measures are imperative to safeguard the nation’s interests. Advocating for individuals with ties to terrorism for political advantages is both hazardous and irresponsible, especially when taking into account the enduring plight of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who have been victims of terrorism for many decades.
The framers of our Constitution deliberately instituted a rigorous and distinct procedure in such cases, guided by the imperative of national interest. The discussions within the Constituent Assembly reveal that this exception was carefully considered, drawing inspiration from analogous provisions in other nations. Importantly, this exceptional procedure was intended to be applicable solely to individuals whose loyalty was markedly uncertain.
The appointment of a teacher within the education department, despite having affiliations with the banned Hizb Ul Mujahideen, serves as a stark illustration of the intricate challenges confronting the administration. According to reports, one of the terminated employee who was a teacher in the education department, was originally appointed even while incarcerated as a member of the prohibited Hizb Ul Mujahideen and was paid salary while he was in jail. Having undergone arms training in ISI-operated camps in Pakistan in 1990, he returned the following year after infiltrating and subsequently became a prominent commander of the Hizb-Ul Mujahideen terrorist group. Arrested by security forces in 1991, he spent nearly two years in detention. Upon his release, he astutely leveraged his affiliations and influence within the secessionist-terrorist network to secure a position as a class IV employee in the Education Department of the Jammu and Kashmir Government. Notably, he later ascended to the role of a teacher during the tenure of the PDP-Congress Government.
Common sense and ethical standards would dictate that upon entering government service, this teacher would abstain from engaging in activities that undermine national interests. However, contrary to expectations, he openly embraced and propagated secessionist ideology, quickly becoming a prominent and notably senior figure within the secessionist organization Tehreek-e-Hurriyat (TeH), under the control of the hard-line Hurriyat Conference Separatist Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The charge sheet further highlighted Mir’s increasing influence in Kupwara, where he gained prominence as a fervent supporter and sympathizer of the banned Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI).
When public servants breach their oath of allegiance, the government cannot passively observe; it is obligated to adhere to the constitutional mandate, safeguarding the interests of citizens and the nation. The actions taken by the Union Territory (UT) administration align with these expectations. Any political endorsement of individuals dismissed on terrorism charges for the sake of political advantage is not only irresponsible but also poses a danger to the integrity of the system.
Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti may have overstepped the Lakshman Rekha. A thought-provoking conundrum emerges here that, can a democracy truly thrive when politicians entwined with terrorism seek power, posing a direct challenge to the bedrock principles of justice and freedom that underpin the entire system?
(Author is an academician and columnist. Feedback at: [email protected])
