Maleeha Lodhi
THE resounding message from occupied Jammu and Kashmir’s recent legislative elections is rejection of India’s Aug 2019 action that robbed the state of even the nominal autonomy it previously had.
The verdict handed a decisive victory to the National Conference (NC) and was a setback for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s aim of securing endorsement for his post-2019 policy.
On Aug 5, 2019, his government had abrogated Article 370 of the Indian constitution which gave the state special status. The state’s bifurcation and absorption into the Indian union was in violation of UN Security Council resolutions and denounced across the occupied territory. This opened another bleak chapter in the disputed state’s tortured history, which involved intensified repression, incarceration of Kashmiri leaders, grave violation of human rights and crackdown on the media.
Many in the Indian media read the outcome of the J&K election as a blow to the BJP and repudiation of its post-2019 actions. Harish Khare wrote in The Wire, “This is a strategic setback, whichever way the Modi apologists may want to slice it.” Another writer called it “an electoral and moral defeat” for BJP. The New York Times acknowledged that “Modi’s heavy manoeuvring to assert BJP ascendance was foiled”.
NC leader Farooq Abdullah said, “The results were a ‘verdict’ against Modi’s government … [they] prove the steps taken on Aug 5 are not acceptable to the people.” Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, leader of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) declared: “By the vote people have rejected the unilateral changes imposed in August 2019, which led to their systematic disempowerment.”
Before assessing the electoral outcome, it is important to consider the backdrop in which the elections took place — after a decade. They occurred in the coercive presence of half a million Indian troops deployed across J&K, with additional forces inducted for the election that patrolled the streets and set up new checkpoints. APHC leaders continued to languish in jail or house detention. Curbs remained on the media with foreign journalists prevented from travelling to the region.
The unmistakable message of the electoral verdict was rejection of Modi’s post-2019 actions.
A series of steps were taken by the BJP government after August 2019, including gerrymandering, aimed at manipulating and shaping the environment for the election. The electoral map was redrawn by carving out new constituencies to disempower the Muslim population. Jammu’s representation was increased to 43 seats leaving Kashmir with 47, despite the fact that the Valley’s population far exceeds Jammu’s.
Demographic changes involved issuing domicile certificates to non-Kashmiri outsiders who became eligible to vote after abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A of the constitution. Temporary residents were also given voting rights. These measures were roundly denounced in J&K including by pro-India Kashmiri politicians and only deepened the resentment and alienation of the Kashmiri people. Little surprise then that issues of statehood, abrogation of Article 370 and New Delhi’s other measures that disenfranchised Kashmiris, dominated the election campaign.
The final blow came weeks before the election when the BJP government substantially increased the powers of the lieutenant-governor, nominated by New Delhi, to sharply limit the authority of the elected government. The LG, an instrument of direct rule by New Delhi since 2018, was given sweeping administrative and security powers and authority to nominate five members to the 90-member legislative assembly. This was condemned across Kashmir with political leaders describing it as an effort to reduce J&K to a municipality while NC leader Omar Abdullah said the chief minister’s office had been downgraded to “a powerless rubber stamp”. The Congress party called it the “murder of democracy”.
The election result was a reaction to these moves and above all to the state’s truncation and disempowerment. Significantly, there were no boycott calls. This reflected the public’s eagerness to use the ballot box to vent their protest against New Delhi as an act of resistance, especially as the election was seen as a referendum on the BJP government’s policies. The National Conference that won 42 seats out of 90 secured an absolute majority with its ally Congress, which won six seats. The Congress party’s ambiguous stance on Article 370 exacted a political price and eroded its support. All regional parties campaigned on promises to reverse the post-2019 changes.
The much speculated ‘wave’ in favour of independent candidates — a record number contested the election — failed to materialise with only two seats won by them in the Kashmir Valley. The People’s Democratic Party was decimated, winning only three seats with voters punishing it for its opportunistic alliance with the BJP in the past. The BJP failed to win a single seat from the 19 it contested in the Valley but secured 29, all from Jammu’s Hindu-majority districts. This underlined a more pronounced Hindu-Muslim divide in the region.
The National Conference was able to tap into popular anger with New Delhi by its unambiguous stand on statehood and autonomy. In its election manifesto the party pledged to fight for the restoration of Article 370, repeal all post-2019 laws that eroded Kashmir’s autonomy and work for India-Pakistan dialogue. Omar Abdullah, who will be the next chief minister, said after the election that his first order of business would be for the cabinet to adopt a resolution calling for restoration of statehood. He promised to keep “the conversation about Article 370 alive” but acknowledged that its restoration would be impossible under a BJP government. Nevertheless, his party’s victory was clear indication of Kashmiri rejection of New Delhi’s decisions as indeed the BJP’s narrative of bringing ‘development’ to J&K.
Omar Abdullah will head a coalition government with Congress that will have very limited powers but face daunting challenges including a likely tussle with the LG. What is apparent is that BJP’s hopes that the election would end the debate over J&K’s status and enable Modi to ‘legitimise’ his 2019 action have been dashed.
In any case, an election under Indian occupation cannot serve as a substitute for a genuine exercise in self-determination by the Kashmiri people. Nor does the election alter in any way J&K’s disputed nature, embodied in UNSC resolutions. What the election does show is that whenever given a chance to voice their opinion the people of Kashmir always say they want no truck with New Delhi.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
Published in Dawn, October 14th, 2024
Why BJP’s Loss in J&K is More Problematic Than its Haryana Win
J&K elections. (File photo/PTI)
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has won Haryana Assembly elections for the third time consecutively. The most striking fact is that the party’s campaign in the state never centered around Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his much trumpeted ‘Modi Ki Guarantee’. Therefore, to say that BJP would once again rely on Modi as a vote-catcher in the elections to be held in Maharashtra and Jharkhand this year, and Bihar and Delhi next year, does not sound convincing.
Of course, one gets an impression from Modi’s speech delivered on Tuesday following the victory of BJP in Haryana by defeating Congress, that the party’s triumph is on account of his leadership and that it is he who would take the party forward in registering many more successes in the forthcoming elections.
But, more than the election victory in Haryana, BJP’s defeat in Jammu and Kashmir at the hands of the National Conference (NC) and Congress alliance is more scathing, because people in the Valley have rejected BJP in toto. Its success in winning 29 of 43 seats in the Jammu region looks only a face-saving mechanism.
The much vaunted and unstated objective of the Modi-Shah (Home Minister Amit Shah) duo to usher in the first Hindu Chief Minister of J&K, after they abrogated the state’s special status and reduced it to a Union Territory, without factoring in the wishes of the people of the region, has met with utter failure. The implications of BJP’s defeat in J&K for the party, therefore, are much huger than those of it winning Haryana for the third time.
The manner in which J&K has been harshly treated by the BJP regime led by Modi and the punitive measures adopted by it against media and dissenters there, negates the PM’s claim that India is the ‘mother of democracy’. Modi, Shah and other BJP leaders asked people in the rest of India to vote for BJP on the ground that special status provided in Article 370 to J&K had been repealed. They also claimed that what they did to J&K had ushered in “unprecedented peace and progress” for the people. Yet, BJP did not field candidates in 28 seats in the Valley.
Such an electoral abandonment of the Valley and its people by BJP clearly shows its lingering fear that the party would be rejected by the people. The defeat of BJP in J&K, therefore, is a clear signal that it is not acceptable to people, who, with the power of vote clearly indicted the party and its measures to humiliate them by downgrading the state to a Union Territory and not conducting elections for several years.
It was only on the orders of the Supreme Court that elections were conducted in J&K. Possibly, without explicit directions from the apex court, the elections might not have been organised for a longer period.
By rejecting BJP, the people of J&K have sent a signal to the entire nation and the world at large, conveying the crucial point that they suffered immensely by the harsh policies adopted to deal with them, without in any way containing terrorism and addressing their livelihood issues. In addition, more military and police measures were taken, compromising their rights and dignity as citizens.
In an article in The Wire, ‘A Local Victory for BJP in Haryana Can't Compensate Modi for His National-Level Setback in Kashmir,’ columnist Harish Khare observed, “It should be obvious that the outcome in J&K is of much greater consequence than the Haryana vote. In Haryana, the election results are reflective of the dynamics of social cleavages, while the post-‘370 abrogation’ vote in Jammu and Kashmir saw a contestation over continuing national arguments. The Haryana electoral victory for the BJP is mostly a local affair, the re-organized state of Jammu and Kashmir was clearly the electoral theatre for a national and global audience. No one in the BJP or in the larger Sangh parivar is entitled to any kind of satisfaction over the Kashmir vote”.
So, the manner in which BJP’s victory in Haryana is being projected as a “booster dose” for the party after it lost majority in the Lok Sabha elections held in May this year, need to be tempered by the party’s rejection in the Union Territory of J&K.
There is no doubt that the success of the party in Haryana will be used by its top leadership to promote its electoral prospects in Maharashtra and other states going to polls soon. But it is unlikely that voters of those states will be influenced by BJP forming the government for the third time in Haryana.
It is quite likely that BJP’s electoral success in Haryana will drive its leadership to accentuate its communal agenda to seek votes. It is feared that there could be accelerated polarisation on religious lines to consolidate votes. Prime Minister Modi, who spewed venom against Muslims while campaigning for his party during the 18th Lok Sabha elections, is likely to step up the tone and tenor of that toxic campaign following the party’s victory in Haryana. Divisive narratives were integral to the poll strategy and speeches by Modi while appealing for votes.
The Haryana elections was devoid of a Modi-centric campaign. With the BJP’s victory in the state, Modi would like to throw himself into centre of campaign strategy in the forthcoming Assembly elections. It would be instructive to see if such an approach would help BJP in doing well in Maharashtra, where the party and its alliance partners performed poorly in the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections.
S N Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K R Narayanan. The views are personal.
