Elections in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, be they for the state legislature or Parliament, have become the symbol around which the contest for legitimacy between the separatists and mainstream political leadership takes place. The recently concluded election for six Parliamentary constituencies was no exception. In the five-phase elections that were held in the state in April-May 2009, 2,022 election rallies were held. Voting percentages ranged from a high of 61 per cent in Ladakh, 49 per cent in Jammu-Poonch, 45.3 per cent in Doda-Udhampur, 40 per cent in Baramula, 26 per cent in Anantnag and 25 per cent in Srinagar. According to media sources, neither the Army nor the Special Operations Group was used for security duty. 225 companies of paramilitary forces, local police, Indian Reserve Police, and Jammu and Kashmir Armed Police were deployed in Jammu during the first phase of elections and subsequently in other places. Excepting for direct clashes between groups supporting the Hurriyat’s 50-hour strike, there were no instances of security forces’ use of excessive force in the context of the election per se.
An analysis of the debate on the elections in the Kashmir Valley however reveals five interesting trends. The first is a continuing trend that may be gleaned from areas where very low voting took place, where people gave varied reasons for why they did or did not vote. Some among those who voted said their vote was for electricity, roads and water, others said it was for resolving the Kashmir issue. Yet others in Bijbehara and Butt Mohalla said they voted for the PDP as it was during its rule that they felt most secure, especially from the Special Operations Group. In Tral and Pampore in Anantnag constituency, no voting took place, and it was limited to a few pockets in the other towns. At polling booth 81-C, 2 out of 1134 people voted. At 68- A Jamia Masjid polling booth in old Baramula, no vote was cast. People cited reasons such as the 2007 Tabinda Gani murder case and “atrocities” against them during the Amarnath agitation as reasons for not voting. At Syed Salahuddin’s village, Soibugh, people did not vote reasoning that when an Assembly member cannot make a difference, how could a Member of Parliament solve their problems.
The second follows from the participation of Sajad Lone of the People’s Conference in the elections. While the separatists criticized the move, there was also support for his decision among his supporters in Kupwara who were urging him to contest even the Assembly elections. They are of the view that the separatists are not helping the Kashmiri cause and that there is a need for someone to represent Kashmir at the national level. The weekly Chattan wrote in Sadad’s defence that he is no ‘sell-out’ and that in fact he is attempting to create a democratic route to continue the Kashmiri struggle, to make it something more than an India-Pakistan issue. It lauded him as the only separatist leader to have provided an alternate and realistic vision for the resolution of the Kashmir issue. A former militant, who now writes for Greater Kashmir, Firdous Syed said in favour of Sajad: he always speaks for a change in strategy, not in ideology.
The third is revealed by the brief drama of the stand-off between the United Jihad Council and the APHC (M) regarding the issue of the boycotting of elections. A senior leader of the Hurriyat faction stated publicly that he would not follow the call of the United Jihad Council which according to him was a non-entity. He was criticized severely by the Dukhtaran-e-Millat, Mahaz-i-Islam as well as by the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (Rajbagh). Following this, there were angry protests during which, for the first time in the Valley, the effigy of a separatist leader was burnt. Eventually, the Mirwaiz had to announce a boycott of the election and heap praise on the militant leadership. The boycott call was also supported by the High Court Bar Association and Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen. However, the local media was highly critical of the non-efficacy of the separatist leadership. It went so far as to lambast the separatists for not being in a position to frame a programme for future action. One column pointed out that Geelani’s call had limited effectiveness in the Valley, clearly demonstrating that Jammu and Ladakh were pro-India. It went so far as to state that the UN Resolutions must take into consideration the wishes of these two regions as well. Another column added to this list of non-inclusivists, the Gujjars and the people of Gilgit and Baltistan. On a fairly critical note, a column in Chattan called for better co-ordination between the separatists and mainstream parties. Separatists, it said, need to give a positive direction to the ‘question of the gun’, find practical ways of protests other than boycott calls, not praise Pakistan and attempt to win the support of India’s Election Commission, administration and even the army.
The fourth relates to voting by the Kashmiri Pandits. 10,000 out of a total of 30,000 Kashmiri Pandit migrants cast their votes for which the Government had made special provisions. Their numbers were less because they had to register using “Form M”, which required documentary proof that the migrants could not provide. Kashmiri Pandit leaders felt that if existing lists of those registered with the Relief Organisation had been used, the voting percentage would have been substantially higher. To protest this and the non-fulfilment of longstanding demands such as reservations and setting up of welfare boards for the Pandits, the political party representing them, namely, the Jammu and Kashmir National United Front (JKNUF) did not field any candidate in the elections.
Finally, in response to several alarming reports on the possible entry of the Taliban into the state, a local daily carried the statement of a spokesman of the Taliban refuting these reports. The daily also noted that the Taliban have not issued any statements about Kashmir during this period.
These debates around the elections lend themselves to some interesting conclusions. First, a certain section of people in Kashmir expressed their disillusionment with the electoral process by not participating in the elections. Causes for such disillusionment will have to be addressed. Second, the reaction to Sajad Lone’s participation must be seen as being positive. It reveals that at least some sections of the people who support separatists would like to give a chance to democratic politics. Third, while the Valley continues to have its usual set of hardliners, thinking minds are aware of the limitations of separatist politics in the current milieu. Fourth, pending a final settlement of the issue of Pandit migrants, their concerns regarding participation in the electoral process need to be addressed. And finally, that the Kashmiris are very keen that they not be bracketed with the Taliban.
The 2009 National Elections: Signals from the Kashmir Valley
More from the author
Elections in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, be they for the state legislature or Parliament, have become the symbol around which the contest for legitimacy between the separatists and mainstream political leadership takes place. The recently concluded election for six Parliamentary constituencies was no exception. In the five-phase elections that were held in the state in April-May 2009, 2,022 election rallies were held. Voting percentages ranged from a high of 61 per cent in Ladakh, 49 per cent in Jammu-Poonch, 45.3 per cent in Doda-Udhampur, 40 per cent in Baramula, 26 per cent in Anantnag and 25 per cent in Srinagar. According to media sources, neither the Army nor the Special Operations Group was used for security duty. 225 companies of paramilitary forces, local police, Indian Reserve Police, and Jammu and Kashmir Armed Police were deployed in Jammu during the first phase of elections and subsequently in other places. Excepting for direct clashes between groups supporting the Hurriyat’s 50-hour strike, there were no instances of security forces’ use of excessive force in the context of the election per se.
An analysis of the debate on the elections in the Kashmir Valley however reveals five interesting trends. The first is a continuing trend that may be gleaned from areas where very low voting took place, where people gave varied reasons for why they did or did not vote. Some among those who voted said their vote was for electricity, roads and water, others said it was for resolving the Kashmir issue. Yet others in Bijbehara and Butt Mohalla said they voted for the PDP as it was during its rule that they felt most secure, especially from the Special Operations Group. In Tral and Pampore in Anantnag constituency, no voting took place, and it was limited to a few pockets in the other towns. At polling booth 81-C, 2 out of 1134 people voted. At 68- A Jamia Masjid polling booth in old Baramula, no vote was cast. People cited reasons such as the 2007 Tabinda Gani murder case and “atrocities” against them during the Amarnath agitation as reasons for not voting. At Syed Salahuddin’s village, Soibugh, people did not vote reasoning that when an Assembly member cannot make a difference, how could a Member of Parliament solve their problems.
The second follows from the participation of Sajad Lone of the People’s Conference in the elections. While the separatists criticized the move, there was also support for his decision among his supporters in Kupwara who were urging him to contest even the Assembly elections. They are of the view that the separatists are not helping the Kashmiri cause and that there is a need for someone to represent Kashmir at the national level. The weekly Chattan wrote in Sadad’s defence that he is no ‘sell-out’ and that in fact he is attempting to create a democratic route to continue the Kashmiri struggle, to make it something more than an India-Pakistan issue. It lauded him as the only separatist leader to have provided an alternate and realistic vision for the resolution of the Kashmir issue. A former militant, who now writes for Greater Kashmir, Firdous Syed said in favour of Sajad: he always speaks for a change in strategy, not in ideology.
The third is revealed by the brief drama of the stand-off between the United Jihad Council and the APHC (M) regarding the issue of the boycotting of elections. A senior leader of the Hurriyat faction stated publicly that he would not follow the call of the United Jihad Council which according to him was a non-entity. He was criticized severely by the Dukhtaran-e-Millat, Mahaz-i-Islam as well as by the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (Rajbagh). Following this, there were angry protests during which, for the first time in the Valley, the effigy of a separatist leader was burnt. Eventually, the Mirwaiz had to announce a boycott of the election and heap praise on the militant leadership. The boycott call was also supported by the High Court Bar Association and Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen. However, the local media was highly critical of the non-efficacy of the separatist leadership. It went so far as to lambast the separatists for not being in a position to frame a programme for future action. One column pointed out that Geelani’s call had limited effectiveness in the Valley, clearly demonstrating that Jammu and Ladakh were pro-India. It went so far as to state that the UN Resolutions must take into consideration the wishes of these two regions as well. Another column added to this list of non-inclusivists, the Gujjars and the people of Gilgit and Baltistan. On a fairly critical note, a column in Chattan called for better co-ordination between the separatists and mainstream parties. Separatists, it said, need to give a positive direction to the ‘question of the gun’, find practical ways of protests other than boycott calls, not praise Pakistan and attempt to win the support of India’s Election Commission, administration and even the army.
The fourth relates to voting by the Kashmiri Pandits. 10,000 out of a total of 30,000 Kashmiri Pandit migrants cast their votes for which the Government had made special provisions. Their numbers were less because they had to register using “Form M”, which required documentary proof that the migrants could not provide. Kashmiri Pandit leaders felt that if existing lists of those registered with the Relief Organisation had been used, the voting percentage would have been substantially higher. To protest this and the non-fulfilment of longstanding demands such as reservations and setting up of welfare boards for the Pandits, the political party representing them, namely, the Jammu and Kashmir National United Front (JKNUF) did not field any candidate in the elections.
Finally, in response to several alarming reports on the possible entry of the Taliban into the state, a local daily carried the statement of a spokesman of the Taliban refuting these reports. The daily also noted that the Taliban have not issued any statements about Kashmir during this period.
These debates around the elections lend themselves to some interesting conclusions. First, a certain section of people in Kashmir expressed their disillusionment with the electoral process by not participating in the elections. Causes for such disillusionment will have to be addressed. Second, the reaction to Sajad Lone’s participation must be seen as being positive. It reveals that at least some sections of the people who support separatists would like to give a chance to democratic politics. Third, while the Valley continues to have its usual set of hardliners, thinking minds are aware of the limitations of separatist politics in the current milieu. Fourth, pending a final settlement of the issue of Pandit migrants, their concerns regarding participation in the electoral process need to be addressed. And finally, that the Kashmiris are very keen that they not be bracketed with the Taliban.
Related Publications