Opinion | Why Obituary !

It may seem a minor act, but to those who have suffered the consequences of that ideology, it is a painful reminder of the fragility of unity.

The inclusion of Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s name in certain obituaries has raised significant concerns. Observers argue that paying tribute to Geelani is fundamentally incorrect, as it opposes the core principles of the Indian Constitution. Honoring someone who consistently stood against the constitutional values of India has shocked many who view this as an affront to the nation’s ideals. Examining the role of lawmakers, the oath of allegiance, and the spirit of the Constitution reveals why this tribute is seen as a troubling departure from India’s core values.Under Article 99 of the Indian Constitution, every elected legislator is required to take an oath of allegiance to the country. This oath mandates candidates to “bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India” and to uphold the nation’s sovereignty and integrity. The loyalty demanded by this oath is the foundation of Indian democracy, ensuring that all representatives align themselves with the values of the nation.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani, however, never swore this oath of allegiance. For over three decades, he openly challenged India’s sovereignty and promoted ideologies that clashed with the country’s constitutional spirit. His separatist stance, particularly his calls for Kashmir’s detachment from India, placed him in direct opposition to the nation’s interests. Recognizing him in any official capacity, therefore, feels contradictory to those who believe in the legislative oath and the values it embodies. Geelani was not merely a political dissenter; he was a staunch proponent of separatism in Kashmir. Through his speeches and influence, he promoted a separatist ideology that encouraged radicalization among Kashmiri youth, leading to a cycle of unrest and violence. His stance legitimized calls for violence against the state, transforming Kashmir’s social and political landscape. For those who view the inclusion of Geelani in obituaries as rewarding divisiveness, this recognition appears to honor a legacy that inflicted immense harm on Kashmir.

For decades, Geelani advocated separatist ideologies that clashed with India’s democratic and secular principles. Rather than pursuing peaceful reforms, he fueled an agenda of hostility that left scars on countless lives, both civilian and military. Recognizing such a figure officially seems to overlook the human cost of these decades of conflict. The consequences of his actions have left many Kashmiris feeling betrayed by a tribute that appears to validate a legacy of discord.Political parties across the spectrum were expected to address this tribute and raise questions. However, several national and local parties remained silent, failing to confront the implications of including Geelani’s name in the list of obituaries. The lack of a unified response has disappointed many who hoped for a show of commitment to national integrity. Observers have noted that this silence may be seen as an avoidance of the fundamental duty of upholding the nation’s values. The silence from certain political quarters has puzzled many, as it suggests an unwillingness to stand firmly by the Constitution in a moment that clearly tests their commitment. For those who expected a strong defense of India’s sovereignty and secular fabric, this lack of response has seemed like an abdication of responsibility. Instead of a resolute stance against a figure who was openly opposed to the nation’s unity, the muted response adds another layer of unease to the inclusion of Geelani’s name. Paying tribute to Geelani sends a concerning message. For many, this act symbolically rewards someone who stood in stark opposition to India’s ideals. Geelani’s legacy does not reflect peaceful dissent or reform; it represents years of division, support for violence, and hostility toward the Republic of India. To some, this recognition disrespects the sacrifices made by civilians, security forces, and political figures who suffered due to his influence on the region’s unrest. The core message of the Indian state has always been “Nation First.” Honoring Geelani, a figure who actively sought to divide India, contradicts this message. His inclusion in an official obituary feels like a betrayal of those who have worked tirelessly to maintain unity and peace in Jammu and Kashmir. For those who cherish the values of the Indian Constitution, this act risks undermining the hard-won peace and stability achieved in Jammu and Kashmir.

Recognizing Geelani raises broader questions about India’s commitment to its foundational values. While individuals may pass on, the principles of unity, peace, and constitutional integrity should remain untouched. Observers contend that this moment calls for a reflection on the country’s values and a reaffirmation of loyalty to the Constitution. Honoring a figure associated with division and violence is seen by many as a compromise on those values, a gesture that risks devaluing the nation’s pursuit of peace. The inclusion of Geelani’s name in an obituary may seem a minor act, but to those who have suffered the consequences of his ideology, it is a painful reminder of the fragility of unity. This moment serves as a reminder to ensure that national unity is preserved—not through appeasing divisive ideologies but through a steadfast commitment to the country’s ideals. For India to remain strong, it must honor not only those who champion its values but also the sacrifices made by those who have defended them.

Writer can be reached on syedjahanzeeb2@gmail.com