English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Russian
Spanish
Urdu
The conclusion, then, is not complicated, even if it is uncomfortable. Kashmir has already paid the price of hesitation, denial, and delayed action. We have seen what happens when early signs are ignored and when sentiment is allowed to override security concerns. The cost has been counted in lost lives, broken families, and generations that grew up in uncertainty. That history leaves very little room for complacency today.
It is never realistic to believe that a person goes to sleep one night and wakes up the next morning deciding to pick up arms and become a terrorist. It takes years of grooming, conditioning, manipulation, radicalisation, and mental preparation to turn an ordinary individual into one. As we know, post-2010, cross-border terrorism was being dealt with to a significant extent by the Border Security Forces and other agencies. Yet, we witnessed a phase where local youth, ordinary Kashmiris, picked up arms. While arms and ammunition may have been supplied from across the border by Pakistan through various channels, the more critical question is this: where did the internal grooming and mental conditioning happen within Kashmir? Earlier, such processes largely took place in training camps across the border in PoJK. That shift raises serious concerns. I have tried to understand this over time, and now, with a certain degree of political maturity, I believe I can connect some of the dots. Karl Marx once said, “Religion is the opium of the masses.” One way to interpret this is that religion, along with strong emotions, can sometimes discourage questioning. That is where part of the answer may lie. Established madrassas, by virtue of their religious identity, became best and sensitive spaces for Pakistan to use. Emotions are inherently attached, and if extremist narratives are introduced in such environments, they may be framed as religious obligations rather than ideological distortions. This creates a situation where critical thinking is overshadowed by unquestioned acceptance. With this context, I am attempting to articulate what a section of the public feels about the closure and ban of the seminary in Imam Sahib, Shopian, Jamia Siraj-ul-Uloom.
Babar Magray, a Chartered Accountant
While I agree that we have often come across cases where a small number of terrorists were somehow linked with certain religious organisations, it cannot be assumed to be true for every terrorist or every institution. At the same time, even if a particular institution has not been directly linked, the proven track record of similar institutions makes it reasonable to act, even on the basis of suspicion. Yes, religion is deeply personal and close to the heart of every individual. But if institutions that project themselves as flagbearers of a religion begin to harm the very fundamentals of that religion, then it is better to take action against them. Islam, through the Holy Quran and the life of Prophet PBUH, teaches peace. In Kashmir, the peace we see today has not come easily. It has taken decades of suffering to reach a stage where normal life feels possible. If any individual, institution, or network even attempts to destabilise this and bring back an era of hartals and killings, it is necessary to curb such elements at their root. Given the nature of the allegations mentioned in the order regarding Jamia Siraj-ul-Uloom, I believe the decision to act was justified. At the same time, if a detailed investigation does not substantiate these claims, the institution should be allowed to resume. However, our hard-earned peace cannot be allowed to be compromised.
Shifa Khatoon, a Regular Columnist
Long back, I have learnt a phrase “there is no smoke without fire” and it holds truth at every point of life. Firstly we should understand one thing, as I could reach the order the institution was linked to the outlawed Jamaat-e-Islami Jammu and Kashmir and its subsidiary Falah-e-Aam Trust (FAT). According to the order issued by Divisional Commissioner Anshul Garg, the action is consequent upon a dossier dated 24 March 2026 from SSP Shopian. The charges incude serious legal administrarive and financial irregularities, questionable land acquisition, lack of mandatory registration with competent authorities and deliberate attempts to evade statutory oversight. I think these cumulative facts and circumstances provide sufficient grounds to reasonably believe that the premises are being used for the purpose of unlawful association. One more thing that Jamaat-e-Islami was banned by the Governemnet of India for its support to terrorism in Kashmir. One good part in all this is that the District Magistrate has been ordered to arrange for migration and admission of its students in the government schools of the district. The institution is said to be having covert linkingaes with Jamaat-e-Islaami, a proscribed unlawful association banned by the GoI in Febuary 2019.If a place meant to diiseminate the ideas of peace, harmony, love with the people, which are basic lessons of the religion it represents, starts teaching radiclisation, it has to be shut and banned. Our peace for at least our generation is uncompromisable.
Firdous Beigh, a Social Media Analyst
It is not about one institution or one religion. It applies equally to every religion and every organisation. Any religious institution that harms the foundational values of India must be held accountable and, if required, shut down. Institutions that threaten sovereignty, communal harmony, secularism, or the Constitution cannot be allowed to function, irrespective of the religion they belong to. I have seen it firsthand that some individuals who later turned to militancy were associated with groups locally referred to as “Jamaat” or “Allah Wale” in Kashmir. It raises questions about what kind of ideological conditioning they were exposed to. As per the order, Jamia Siraj-ul-Uloom was allegedly linked covertly to the already banned Jamaat-e-Islami Jammu and Kashmir. It also mentions that some individuals in key administrative positions had prior involvement during the peak years of unrest, such as 2010 and 2016. If such activities were indeed taking place within the institution, then acting at this stage to curb it at its roots is justified. At the same time, a detailed investigation must follow to establish the full extent of these links. There are two possibilities: either the institution is ultimately found innocent, or the investigation uncovers a larger network operating in the region. In either case, the priority remains clear. Anything that supports Kashmir in staying peaceful and moving towards stability and progress deserves to be upheld.
Aqib Lone, a Student Activist
We do not need reminders of what Kashmir has gone through. Years of violence, terrorism, and bloodshed are part of our collective memory. Every household has felt it in some form. When peace finally began to return, it brought with it a sense of normalcy that we had almost forgotten. But the scars remain. That is why any discussion around institutions suspected of enabling radicalisation must be taken seriously. The question is simple. If any institution, regardless of its nature, is found to be facilitating extremist thinking or indirectly aiding violence, should it be allowed to continue in the name of sentiment? The answer has to be no. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. Too much has been lost already. As Kashmiris, we must be honest with ourselves. We do not want a return to shutdowns, killings, or fear. We want our schools to function, our economy to grow, and our youth to have opportunities beyond conflict. If anything threatens this progress, it must be addressed at the earliest stage. Terrorism, like a disease, needs to be contained before it spreads. In that context, the action taken against Jamia Siraj-ul-Uloom should be seen as a preventive step. If the allegations hold weight, then acting now is far better than reacting later. At the same time, due process must follow. If the institution is found innocent after investigation, it should be allowed to function again. But safeguarding peace has to remain the priority.
Nusrat Jan, a Private School Teacher
As someone who has witnessed the difficult years in Kashmir, I believe this issue needs to be viewed with both sensitivity and realism. Religion is deeply personal, and any action involving a religious institution naturally affects sentiments. However, we cannot allow emotions to override facts and security concerns. There have been instances in the past where religious spaces were misused to spread ideas that did not align with peace or the true teachings of the faith. Islam, at its core, promotes harmony, compassion, and coexistence. If any institution claiming to represent it deviates from these principles and becomes a platform for radicalisation, then it raises serious concerns. The recent action involving Jamia Siraj-ul-Uloom has to be understood in that broader context. The authorities have cited links with the banned Jamaat-e-Islami Jammu and Kashmir along with other irregularities. These are not minor issues and warrant scrutiny. At the same time, it is important that investigations are fair and transparent. If the institution is wrongly accused, it should be given the opportunity to clear its name. But if there is substance to the allegations, then the action becomes necessary. Kashmir today is at a stage where stability is slowly returning. Education, tourism, and livelihoods are improving. This progress must not be disrupted. Any step that helps in preserving peace, even if difficult, needs to be supported with a clear and rational understanding.
The conclusion, then, is not complicated, even if it is uncomfortable. Kashmir has already paid the price of hesitation, denial, and delayed action. We have seen what happens when early signs are ignored and when sentiment is allowed to override security concerns. The cost has been counted in lost lives, broken families, and generations that grew up in uncertainty. That history leaves very little room for complacency today. If an institution such as Jamia Siraj-ul-Uloom is suspected, based on documented inputs, of links with a banned organisation like Jamaat-e-Islami Jammu and Kashmir, along with administrative, financial, and regulatory violations, then action cannot be viewed as arbitrary. It becomes part of a preventive framework aimed at ensuring that past cycles of radicalisation do not repeat themselves. Waiting for conclusive damage before acting is not prudence; it is negligence. At the same time, the principle of due process must remain intact. Allegations must be tested, investigations must be thorough, and accountability must be evidence-based. If the institution is cleared, it should be allowed to resume. But until that clarity emerges, the priority cannot shift away from public safety and long-term stability. This is not about targeting religion, nor about discrediting religious education. It is about drawing a clear line between faith and its misuse. The moment any space, however sacred its identity, is used to justify or enable violence, it ceases to be protected by sentiment alone. Kashmir stands at a fragile but important point. Normalcy has returned after decades, and it must be preserved with consistency and clarity. Every preventive step taken today reduces the risk of relapse tomorrow. If this decision ensures that even one pathway to radicalisation is closed, then it aligns with a larger responsibility: protecting the future of Kashmir from the mistakes of its past.
Email: soulofkashmir1@gmail.com
