SILENT CELLS AND SHATTERED PROMISES: THE FAILURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASES OF YASIN MALIK AND AAFIA SIDDIQUI

Abstract

This article uses a comparative case study analysis of Yasin Malik and Aafia Siddiqui to examine how security policies contribute to the criminalization of political resistance. Malik and Siddiqui represent mainstream characters of disputed conflicts, which is the situation with Malik in the Indian controlled Kashmir and Siddiqui in the broader scope of the US-led War on Terror. The two were both tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison under the anti-terror laws, as being credibly represented by the relevant states as posing security threats. However, to several people, they are regarded as sources of resistance to human rights violations and justice denial. In this article, their trials, imprisonment, and how they were received worldwide are taken into view. It attempts to demonstrate the equilibrium, or even disequilibrium, between state sovereignty and safety, and the continuing saga of human rights. It claims that fast-changing enforcement policies and geopolitical interests have made resistance a criminal offence, leaving unfilled the silence of empty cells in prison and promises made of justice.