State assembly elections have been held in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir in the past and are likely to continue to be held in the future. If history is any guide, it can safely be inferred that they will neither be accepted by the people of Jammu and Kashmir as a substitute to the right to self-determination or plebiscite, nor they diminish freedom sentiments in the valley.
By Awais Bin Wasi
Introduction
In November-December 2008, the eleventh round of elections, comprising 87 seats, was held in Indian Held Kashmir (IHK). Although elections in this disputed area, which consists of the Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh regions[1], have always been a focus of world attention, the circumstances and turnout of the 2008 elections gave them added significance.
Indian officials tend to present elections in IHK before the international community as a touchstone for gauging the current trend and vigor of the freedom movement in the valley and for projecting future political developments. Following the 2008 elections, India claimed in the United Nations (UN) that the peaceful conduct of elections was an indication of the consent and acknowledgement of the people of Jammu and Kashmir regarding Kashmir's accession to the Indian union.[2]
Voter turnout in the 2008 elections [3] was higher than analysts had expected. The elections were held in the backdrop of an unprecedented mass uprising in the wake of the Amarnath yatra controversy [4] . Most observers had projected that elections would either be postponed or, if they were held, voter turnout would be minimal. [5] However, the elections were held according to the stipulated schedule and a large number of people exercised their right to franchise, contrary to previous elections,, [6] in which successful boycott campaigns had kept voter turnout very low.
The high voter turnout was interpreted by some quarters, including even the Indian National Congress President Sonia Gandhi, as proof that the freedom movement in Kashmir had lost impetus. [7] The question arises whether the election results, or for that matter the conduct of the 2008 elections, really signify that support for freedom has decreased.
This question is examined in this paper based on a consideration of the historical dynamics of the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) state assembly elections, the environment and manner in which the 2008 elections were held, and an analysis of the implications of the elections' results and aftermath.
Historical Background of the J&K Elections
It is necessary to analyze the track record of J&K state assembly elections to understand the place of elections in the debate on the Kashmir issue, and the historical context of the 2008 elections. The following table provides a quick overview of the results of state assembly elections in J&K since 1951.
In the very first state assembly elections, held in 1951, the National Conference (NC), under the leadership of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, won all 75 seats of the Constituent Assembly without any contest as the authorities rejected the nomination papers of the major opposition party-Praja Parishad-on frivolous grounds, and the independent contestants dropped out at the last moment. [9]
In the second elections, held in 1957, the NC secured 68 seats, of which 43 were unopposed, [10] while in 1962, NC candidates ran for 41 seats in the valley and were returned unopposed to 34. In 1967, the Indian National Congress secured 57 seats, of which 22 were returned unopposed. [11]
"On all the three occasions - 1951, 1957, 1962 - the government machinery was completely and unhesitatingly used in support of the ruling party; opponents were disqualified on flimsy and frivolous grounds; the few dauntless candidates dared to stand for the contest were mercilessly beaten or kidnapped; Peace Brigade men were employed to intimidate voters; and when even strong arm methods failed, the ballot boxes were tampered with enabling polling officers to declare the victory of the National Conference party men." [12] The elections of 1962 were so thoroughly rigged, in fact, that Jawahar Lal Nehru, then Indian premier, was constrained to point out to G. M. Bakshi, the leader of NC at that time (as Sheikh Abdullah was in jail), that "it would strengthen your position more if you lost a few seats to bonafide opponents." [13]
Dynamics of Elections 2008
The turnout and results of the 2008 elections need to be seen in the context of internal and external political dynamics operating at the time in J&K. The following discussion outlines the strategy adopted by the Indian government to assure a higher turnout in the elections, including the undemocratic means adopted to silence the boycott campaign, as well as the public perceptions and external factors that may have influenced the voting.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment