TV host opens up about 'etalk' termination, talks 'solidarity' with 'mistreated' women

Chris Stoodley

·Lifestyle and News Editor

Sat, August 20, 2022 

Following Lisa LaFlamme' sudden departure from "CTV News" earlier this week, another past employee is speaking out about alleged mistreatment and gender discrimination.

On Saturday morning, past "etalk" co-host Danielle Graham tweeted a timeline of her experience being terminated from Bell Media.

"I haven't yet spoken publicly about my dismissal from Bell Media. But in light of recent news, there have been a lot of questions surrounding my departure," Graham wrote in a slide posted on her Twitter account before 9:30 a.m. on Aug. 20.

Graham continued to detail her experience at work in the first two weeks of March, before she was eventually let go by the media company.

"March 1: I brought to management's attention a situation where it was clear I was being discriminated against as a woman. I was ignored and laughed at," she began. "March 4: I forwarded this example of the blatant gender discrimination I was facing to HR. March 7: HR told me to file a formal complaint and that an investigation would commence. March 8: A meeting to discuss these issues was set for March 11."

However, things quickly took a turn for the worse, according to Graham.

"Instead, on March 11, I was re-scheduled to be in the office for a 'shoot,'" she wrote. "As I was getting ready in my office, I was suddenly told by management, 'Your services are no longer required.' I was told it was a 'business decision.'"

In a second slide, Graham went on to explain more of her experience with being let go so suddenly.

"I was not allowed to say goodbye on-air or to contribute to the messaging surrounding my departure, despite several requests from my representative to do so," she penned. "I was given three months severance for my 17 months there.

"I'm proud to stand in solidarity and fight alongside all women who have been mistreated, discriminated against and who have been retaliated against for speaking up."

Several people on social media expressed their support for Graham, with some calling out Bell Media for how it treats its employees.

Before announcing her departure from Bell Media earlier in March in another tweet, Graham had spent 17 years with the Canadian media giant.

On Aug. 15, long-time "CTV News" lead anchor Lisa LaFlamme voiced her own experience with Bell Media when she was informed on June 29 that her contract would be ending. After spending 35 years working for the company, LaFlamme explained how she felt "blindsided" in a video posted to her Twitter account.

That same day, Bell Media issued a statement explaining its decision to replace LaFlamme with 39-year-old Vancouver-born journalist, Omar Sachedina.

Amid the controversy, Brent Jolly, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists told the Toronto Star that it was “a stolen moment” in which both a decorated woman and an accomplished man of colour have been robbed of significant benchmarks in their careers.

On Friday, Bell Media followed up with its decision in another statement on Twitter. Signed by the company's president, Wade Oosterman, and vice president, Karine Moses, the letter explains that "CTV regrets" how it communicated the news of LaFlamme's departure.

'Someone should be held accountable': LaFlamme's exit from CTV sparks internal investigation, petition for her return

Elianna Lev

Fri, August 19, 2022 

Reinstate Lisa LaFlamme as Chief Anchor at CTV News petition

The trajectory of CTV's former lead anchor, Lisa LaFlamme's dismissal from the network has led to loud feedback from viewers and now an internal investigation into how it was all handled.

Earlier this week, the veteran journalist took to her social media to inform her followers that her contract with CTV was not renewed, despite having two years left. She described being “blindsided” by the decision, which was described by the network as a “business decision” sparked by “changing viewer habits”.

Many on social media were outraged by the move, describing it as sexist and ageist. There are reports of conversation around LaFlamme’s decision to go gray, with some wondering if that was part of her exit from the network. A petition on Change.org has since been launched to reinstate LaFlamme back to her former job.

Bell Media, the parent company of the network, has since put out a statement saying they regret the way the situation was handled and they take the accusations around it very seriously. They added that an independent, third-party internal workplace review will be taking place in the near future.

Anil Verma is a professor emeritus of industrial relations and HR management with the University of Toronto. He says Bell Media appears to be in damage control at the moment because they know they’ve done damage to themselves.

“I don’t think it went well for them, in fact it went badly,” he tells Yahoo Canada News.

He’s unsure whether CTV was within their legal right to not renew LaFlamme’s contract if she wasn’t needed, saying it could be a matter of personalities clashing. However, a number of people were likely involved with the final decision and still managed to handle it poorly.

“You can’t argue that she wasn’t doing her job properly, that wouldn't stand in front of an arbitrator,” he says. “She could justly sue CTV and win a big settlement because she has lots of evidence to show that performance on the job wasn’t an issue and she was fired for reasons unrelated to her ability to do the job.”

When it comes to proving the allegations of ageism and sexism, Verma says that would be more of a challenge to prove, as you’d have to demonstrate there was a systemic issue of demoting women at the network.

Still, he points out that not only have CTV lost their lead anchor on the network, they’ve invited a tsunami of bad publicity.

“Someone should be held accountable for that,” he says. “If you’d done it right, you wouldn’t have to do an internal investigation.”

Jared Kushner memoir chronicles frustrations of negotiating trade deal with Canada

CBC
Sat, August 20, 2022 

Kushner, right, as his father-in-law announces a new NAFTA deal on Oct. 1, 2018.

 It was a rocky ride getting there. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters - image credit)

Members of the Trump administration would rant at their Canadian counterparts during the renegotiation of NAFTA about the frequency of leaks that appeared in the press.

The Americans insisted those trade talks be allowed to unfold discreetly at the negotiating table. They avoided news conferences, rarely spoke to reporters and let Donald Trump's occasional ill-tempered tweets speak for the U.S.

A new memoir lays out the U.S. perspective on those closed-door talks.

The book by presidential son-in-law and senior-staffer Jared Kushner earned the literary equivalent of a ritualized execution in a vividly unflattering New York Times book review that mocked its wooden writing and wilful blindness to the seedier aspects of the Trump legacy.

The book does fill in some gaps on a significant historical event for Canada: it describes the false-starts in the trade talks; frustrations with the Canadians; and how the deal wound up with two tongue-twisting acronyms for a name.

Breaking History, Kushner's book, describes a method to Trump's madness, crediting the president's sporadic threats to cancel NAFTA with creating valuable pressure on Canada and Mexico.

It also acknowledges the madness in the method.

An angry tweet from Trump stalled talks before they even began. In early 2017, the North American countries planned an amicable announcement of new trade negotiations at a three-country event at the White House.

When Kushner called Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's chief of staff to confirm plans, Katie Telford asked whether it was still on: "Didn't you see his tweets this morning?"

In fact, Kushner had not seen his father-in-law's public threat to cancel meetings with the Mexican leader unless Mexico paid for a new border wall; the meeting was cancelled.

Later in the day he said Trump realized that might have been a mistake and half-jokingly told Kushner: "I can't make this too easy for you."

Carlos Barria/Reuters

The tweets, then the drama

Months later, there was another bumpy launch. Trump asked staff to draw up documents to terminate the original NAFTA.

Trump was actually undecided about whether to go through with it when someone — Kushner suspects it was White House trade skeptic Peter Navarro — leaked the news to the Politico website, hoping to pressure the president to do it.

Aspects of what happened next are already public knowledge: Trudeau and his Mexican counterpart Enrique Peña Nieto called Trump, pleading with him not to, warning it would cause chaos, and after a frantic few hours everyone agreed to launch renegotiation talks.

What's less well-known is that Trump engineered those calls, according to the book.

What had happened was the pro-trade Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue had already persuaded Trump not to cancel NAFTA; he showed Trump a large map and explained it would crush farmers in the rural areas that support him.

Trump needed a face-saving way to back down from his threat.

The solution? Get those foreign leaders on the phone to plead with him; Kushner called Telford and a Mexican colleague and said their bosses should urgently phone Trump.

"Sensing that Trump was looking for a solution, I [said]: 'What if I get President Peña Nieto and Prime Minister Trudeau to call right now and ask you not to cancel NAFTA, and then you can put out a statement that says you will give them time to negotiate,'" Kushner wrote.

"The immediate crisis abated."

That was in April 2017. Formal talks began later that summer. After months of negotiations, the Americans grew increasingly annoyed at Canada 's alleged unwillingess to budge on key issues.

Kushner said he enlisted billionaire businessman Steve Schwarzman to call Trudeau and tell him the Canadians were taking a serious risk: "They are playing chicken with the wrong guy," he said he told Schwarzman.

He said the businessman called him back a few hours later: "Trudeau, he said, 'Got the message loud and clear.'"

A Canadian team flew down to Washington and Telford says there were three impediments to a deal: U.S. steel tariffs on Canada, the need for a dispute mechanism, and dairy.

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

U.S. team erupts at Freeland

The book describes how U.S. officials grew annoyed in the final bargaining sessions with Canada's lead politician in the talks, Chrystia Freeland.

It's been reported that one American erupted up at Freeland for slow-walking during those sessions, losing his patience when she started discussing whaling rights for Inuit people.

The book places the U.S. narrative on the public record.

"An increasingly frustrating series of negotiations," is how Kushner described it. He said Freeland would read notes scribbled in ink on her hand, then let her officials spar with U.S. trade chief Robert Lighthizer over the technical details.

"All the while [she was] refusing to commit to any substantive changes," Kushner wrote.

"Following this theater, she would walk to the steps of the USTR [U.S. Trade Representative] building and hold an outdoor press conference, uttering platitudes like 'I get paid in Canadian dollars, not U.S. dollars.'"

At this point the U.S. prepared for two outcomes: a Mexico-U.S. deal or a three-country one. Kushner says Peña Nieto also told Trudeau his representatives were moving too slowly and that Mexico would sign.

Then, on Sept. 26, Trump trashed Freeland at a press conference and threatened to punish Canadian autos with tariffs.

Kushner writes: "Less than an hour later, the Canadians gave us an offer in writing. After 16 months of stalling, they were finally ready to talk specifics."

Yet when he showed the Canadian offer to Lighthizer, the U.S. trade chief said: "This is all rubbish! They don't want to make a deal." Kushner said he suggested calling Telford to explain why it was unworkable: "'No,' Lighthizer shot back."

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

'I want it to be called the USMCA'

After meetings the next morning, however, Kushner called Telford, and they settled some longstanding irritants. Trudeau's chief of staff called back an hour later and said: "The prime minister is going to take the deal."

With the deal done, Trump made one final request.

"I want it to be called the USMCA, like [the] U.S. Marine Corps."

Freeland and the rest of the Canadian government have refused to use that name, continuing to call it, "the new NAFTA," or by the acronym, CUSMA.

Kushner credits the president's style for producing a better deal for the U.S.: the new agreement sets caps on low-wage auto production in Mexico; lets slightly more U.S. dairy into Canada; and forces once-a-decade reviews of the pact.

"Negotiating a trade deal is like a game of chicken, with real consequences. The other side has to believe you are going to jump off a cliff. We succeeded because Trump was absolutely prepared to terminate NAFTA — and Mexico and Canada knew it," he writes. "His style made many people uncomfortable, including his allies in Congress, foreign leaders and his own advisers, but it led to unprecedented results."

One Canadian official involved in the talks said Ottawa knew exactly what it was doing by stalling: Canada was aware the U.S. wanted a deal quickly, before late 2018.

Canadian official: We intentionally drained the clock

Trump's team hoped to conclude talks while Republicans still controlled Congress before the 2018 midterms, and before a new Mexican president took office.

"The truth is we were draining the clock," said one Canadian involved. "Trudeau never instructed us to make a final deal. He always said [get] the right deal or no deal."

The Canadian government was more circumspect when asked for an on-the-record comment about Kushner's book: in an emailed statement, a spokeswoman for Freeland said the Canadian team worked hard for a good deal and was vindicated by its firm approach.

The juicier parts of Kushner's book include chronicles of rampant back-stabbing and turf wars in the Trump White House.

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

In particular, he portrays ex-aide Steve Bannon as a volatile schemer who set out to get Kushner fired by leaking unflattering half-truths about him to the press.

He writes that Bannon dishonestly brands himself as the keeper of the Trumpian ideological flame, and Kushner as a liberal interloper, when, in reality, Bannon joined the Trump team late in the 2016 campaign, long after his policies were set.

Sidestepping Jan. 6

The historic events of Jan. 6, 2021, barely merit a mention. Kushner says he was travelling back from the Middle East and didn't realize until late in the day the seriousness of the storming of the Capitol.

Leah Millis/Reuters

The New York Times review assailed Kushner's book as self-servingly selective, its prose soulless, sidestepping the key unflattering details of Trump's political epitaph.

"Kushner almost entirely ignores the chaos, the alienation of allies, the breaking of laws and norms, the flirtations with dictators, the comprehensive loss of America's moral leadership, and so on," said the review.

"This book is like a tour of a once majestic 18th-century wooden house, now burned to its foundations, that focuses solely on, and rejoices in, what's left amid the ashes: the two singed bathtubs, the gravel driveway and the mailbox. Kushner's fealty to Trump remains absolute."

Daughter of Putin Propagandist Killed in Car Bombing Outside Moscow, Reports Say

Allison Quinn Sat, August 20, 2022 

via Twitter

The daughter of a far-right Russian ideologue commonly known as “Putin’s brain” for his supposed influence over the Russian president’s fascist views, was reportedly killed in a car bombing outside Moscow late Saturday.

Images of the blast were widely circulated on Telegram by the news outlets Baza and 112, which reported that Darya Dugina, the daughter of Alexander Dugin, was killed instantly in the explosion. Russia’s TASS news agency cited law enforcement sources who confirmed that a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado had blown up, but they did not confirm the identity of the driver, only describing the victim as female. A man identified by TASS as an acquaintance of Dugina, however, confirmed that she was killed.

The Russian news outlet Baza reported that Dugina, 30, had been returning home from a literature and music festival called “Tradition” when the blast occurred. She was reportedly behind the wheel for only 10 minutes before the explosion.

Alexander Dugin was meant to be in the vehicle his daughter was driving but had gotten in a different one at the last second, according to Pyotr Lundstrem, a Russian violinist quoted by the outlet.

Dugin had reportedly been following right behind his daughter and had watched as her car exploded. Photos shared by Baza appeared to show Dugin distraught at the scene, holding his head in both hands as he stood in front of the fiery wreckage.

Denis Pushilin, the Russian proxy leader of Ukraine's occupied Donetsk, angrily blamed “terrorists of the Ukrainian regime” for the blast, writing on Telegram that they had been “trying to liquidate Alexander Dugin” but “blew up his daughter.”

“In loving memory of Darya, she is a true Russian girl,” Pushilin wrote.

Pro-Kremlin Telegram channels and social media pages similarly blamed Ukraine for the explosion and called on Russians to “avenge” Dugina’s death.

Investigators are reported to be viewing the explosion as a targeted hit that may have been meant for Alexander Dugin, a philosopher widely believed to be the chief architect of Vladimir Putin’s ideology of a “Russian World” and the driving force behind his aggression against Ukraine.

Darya Dugina had been outspoken in her support of Russia’s war against Ukraine. As evidence began to pile up in April of Russian war crimes in the Kyiv suburb of Bucha, Dugina argued in an interview that the slaughter of civilians had been staged, bizarrely claiming that the U.S. had chosen the city because in English the name sounds like “butcher.” She was also sanctioned by the U.S. government in March in connection with her role in a Kremlin-run influence operation known as Project Lakhta.

Australia PM could launch inquiry into secret ministries saga

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Sunday said his government could consider an inquiry into former Prime Minister Scott Morrison being secretly sworn into key ministries during the coronavirus pandemic.

Morrison, who stepped down as leader of the Liberal Party after losing a general election in May, was secretly sworn in to five key ministries during the pandemic, which represented an unprecedented assumption of powers, it emerged this week.

The action has drawn criticism from the Labor government and Morrison's own party, but the former prime minister has defended the moves on the basis that he felt responsibility for the nation in the pandemic was his alone.

On Sunday, Albanese said the government would receive advice on Monday from the Solicitor General, the country's second highest law officer, on the legality of Morrison's actions.

Albanese indicated the government would also consider an inquiry and reforms to ensure the actions could not be repeated.

Related video: Former Australia PM says secret powers were needed in crisis
Duration 0:41
View on Watch

"We'll examine all of those issues after we receive the Solicitor General's advice. I am running a proper cabinet government, that has proper processes, and we'll give full consideration to it," Albanese told Sky News television.

He said while the Solicitor General would advise on legal issues, there also were broader issues that needed to be probed.

"There's separate questions about the functioning of our democracy, about conventions and whether any conventions have been overturned, and whether there's a need for any reforms required to ensure that something like this can never happen again," the prime minister said.

Albanese has previously said Morrison had attacked the Westminster system of government by secretly appointing himself to the portfolios, which included home affairs, treasury, health, finance and resources between 2020 and 2021.

Morrison has said he did not "take over" the ministries, after being sworn in by the governor general, and no ministers were interfered with except on one occasion, where he rejected a resources project.

(Reporting by Sam McKeith; Editing by Chris Reese)

India sees more deadly elephant attacks as habitats shrink

More than 1,500 people have died in elephant attacks in India in the past three years, and 300 of the animals have been killed in retaliation. Authorities are seeking long-term solutions to stop deadly encounters.

Human population has increased and elephants are not getting enough space, experts say

Elephant-human conflicts have been on the rise in India as a result of habitat loss, and experts say such conflicts could get worse unless forested areas are protected and migration corridors restored.

More than 1,500 people have died in elephant attacks in the country in the past three years, with 300 of the animals killed in retaliation, according to government figures, as authorities seek long-term solutions to minimize such incidents.

By various estimates, including those provide by the Wildlife Trust of India and the IUCN SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group, India accounts for 70-80% of all recorded human deaths caused by elephants across Asia.

Increased contact with humans

"With competition for resources, human-animal conflicts are increasing, and it is very unfortunate that around 500 people are killed in elephant attacks and 100 jumbos are killed in retaliation annually," Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav said last week at a press conference held to mark World Elephant Day.

In most cases, compensation was provided to local communities for loss of their property and life caused by wild elephants.

India is home to the world's largest population of Asian elephants and about 29,000 elephants remain in the wild, environmentalists say.

Elephant forest habitats are being eroded by agriculture and infrastructure.

Nearly 40% of elephant reserves are vulnerable, as they are not within protected parks and sanctuaries. Also, as elephants migrate, they are offered no specific legal protection.

In the eastern state of Odisha alone, more than 700 elephants have died since 2012 even as the state government has adopted a raft of measures to reduce such deaths.

Elephants are expected to live for up to 50 years but their survival depends upon regular migration over large distances to search for food, water, and social and reproductive partners.

Conservationists says elephants can benefit ecosystems in many ways, including by dispersing seeds, spreading their manure and creating waterholes for the benefit of other species.

"Problems arise when these giants can no longer migrate due to man-made disturbances; when their corridors are destroyed by open-cast mining, canals and other constructions, highways and railway tracks," conservationist and wildlife campaigner Belinda Wright told DW.

Wright, who is the founder and executive director of the Wildlife Protection Society of India,pointed out that elephants often have to turn to other food sources such as crops to survive, which in turn pits them against local farmers and villagers.

"Left alone, elephants do not usually attack people. When elephants enter agricultural fields, or go near human habitation, they are inevitably surrounded by mobs of people. They are intelligent, powerful animals and eventually they will retaliate, again and again," Wright said.

Habitat fragmentation fuels the potential for human-elephant conflicts, as roads and farms surrounding fragmented feeding grounds are more prone to such confrontations.

The northeastern state of Assam, for instance, which is home to more than 5,700 Asian elephants, has seen a steady depletion of forest cover over the years.

Kushal Konwar Sarma is referred to as the "elephant doctor."  He has worked with pachyderms — very large mammals with thick skin, such as elephants, rhinos and hippos — for over three decades.

Sarma told DW that preventive measures like chili fences, planting lemon trees instead of electric fences, using smoke, as well as growing long-rice varieties, have all been adopted with varying degrees of success.

Competing for resources 

"It is important to involve the community when it comes to finding solutions towards man-elephant conflict and raising awareness regarding the importance of preservation and protection of elephants," Sarma said.

"The human population has increased, and elephants are not getting enough space," Sarma added.

What's more, it was discovered that many rural communities living in protected areas of forests move closer to permanent water sources during dry periods to ensure stable water access for their household needs, crops and livestock.

Competition for increasingly scarce water sources and other resources during or after droughts increases the risk of conflict between elephants and humans. 

A recent study by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) also showed that the presence of natural barriers such as rivers, or human-made barriers such as highways, concrete walls and electric fences, "can also result in genetic differentiation among populations."

Conservationists and wildlife campaigners have listed more than 100 corridors throughout the country that are critical to the long-term survival of elephants, but many have some form of human-caused disturbance.

"Corridors comprise the unprotected lands between fragments of protected areas. These areas are increasingly human dominated, resulting in high levels of human-wildlife conflict," a senior WII representative told DW.

"Elephant herds are known to migrate across 350-500 kilometers (200-300 miles) annually but increasingly fragmented landscapes are driving the giant mammals more frequently into human-dominated areas," she said.

The largest number of corridors are located in northern West Bengal, which has one corridor for every 150 kilometers of available elephant habitat, resulting in heightened human-animal conflict and an average of about 50 human deaths every year.

Among states, West Bengal has the largest number of corridors, with 14, followed by Tamil Nadu, with 13, and Uttarakhand (11).

Given the increase in human-elephant conflicts, the government has embarked on finding a long-term solution by revisiting the elephant corridors and have finished more than 50% of the task involving key stakeholders.

"It is going to take knowledge, political support and perhaps some compromise to find a way to allow for the space that these incomparable animals need to survive, and, better still, flourish, in this ever-changing world," Wright said.

Edited by: John Silk

DW RECOMMENDS

The sorry lives of India's captive elephants

India's southern state of Kerala has had a long tradition of using elephants for religious celebrations and parades. The pomp, however, belies the cruel conditions under which these gentle giants live.  

Noah's Park: Saving elephants from the flood

Every year, the monsoon floods parts of India's Assam region. This often hurts wild animals like elephants or rhinos, or separates them from their herds. A rescue station in the area steps in to help.  

#KASHMIR IS #INDIA'S #GAZA

Kashmir: India triggers outrage by expanding voting rights

Kashmiri political parties are concerned that the inclusion of 2.5 million new voters in the Muslim-majority region will permanently disenfranchise Kashmiris.

Some Kashmiris fear India is trying to reshape the region's politics

An alliance of Kashmiri political parties has called for a meeting next week to discuss the "inclusion of nonlocals" in the voter list after New Delhi granted voting rights to people from central India living in Kashmir.

The move will allow about 2.5 million potential new voters in India-administered Kashmir to participate in elections set for next year.

Kashmiri political parties have said inflating the voter rolls is an attempt by New Delhi to further cement its influence after the region lost its semiautonomous status in 2019.

"This is the last nail in the coffin of electoral democracy in Jammu and Kashmir," former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, from the Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party, told DW.

India and Pakistan claim Kashmir in full but rule it in part. New Delhi accuses Pakistan of backing Kashmiri separatists militarily, a claim denied by Islamabad.

Demographic tensions in Kashmir

According to India's last census, taken in 2011, India-administered Kashmir had a total population of about 12.3 million.

"If 2.5 million BJP voters will come from the outside, what will remain value of voters of Jammu and Kashmir?" Mufti said, referring to India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, which has pursued Hindu nationalist policies since coming to power in 2014 under PM Narendra Modi.

Kashmiris have long accused Modi's government of trying to alter Kashmir's demographics by encouraging Hindu migration to the Muslim-majority region.

Ather Zia, a political anthropologist from the University of Northern Colorado in the United States, told DW that the BJP is "oiling the wheels of settler colonialism" in Kashmir.

"This latest hegemonic move is free for all, and it is geared towards full and final dispossession of indigenous Kashmiris," she said.

Kashmir resident Reyaz Ahmad told DW that the expanded voter list is an attempt by New Delhi to "perpetually disempower the local population."

"By this tactic, New Delhi wants to control the narrative and sell that Kashmiris have chosen them," Ahmad said. "This will give power to outsiders — and locals will have to beg to maintain influence."

BJP leader Priya Sethi told DW that allowing any Indian citizen to vote would end the "dynastic politics of regional parties" in India-administered Kashmir.

"We believe in the constitution, and the 'one vote, one nation' theory. Our constitution allows every Indian citizen the right to vote, and now no one is an outsider here," Sethi said, adding that the regional political parties should follow the constitution.

What has changed in Kashmir?

On August 5, 2019, New Delhi arbitrarily stripped Kashmir's limited autonomy by amending Article 370 of the Indian constitution, therefore allowing non-Kashmiris to own land and apply for government jobs, which, up to then, had been reserved for Kashmiris.

The Indian government also bifurcated the region into two federally governed territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and also introduced a slew of new laws, which critics and many Kashmiris fear could change the demography of the region.

Since 2019, India has cracked down on resistance to its administration of Kashmir

After abrogating the region's autonomy, New Delhi abolished permanent citizenship and started granting domicile certificates to every Indian citizen who had been living the region for at least 15 years.

Thousands of migrant laborers, Indian employees, and Hindu refugees who had been living in different parts of the region's Jammu province were given domicile and voting rights.

Before 2019, the electoral rolls for local elections only allowed voting rights to permanent residents of India-administered Kashmir.

The region's chief electoral officer, Hridesh Kumar, told DW that the new rules would allow "any citizen of India who has attained the qualifying age of 18 years and ordinarily residing" in India-administered Kashmir to be eligible to vote.

Kumar said there was no need for a person to have a domicile certificate from India-administered Kashmir to become a voter.

He said non-Kashmiri employees, students or laborers could sign up to vote. This would also include members of the Indian armed forces posted in Kashmir.

Violent reprisal feared

The change in voting laws has also seen rising animosity from Kashmiris against people seen as outsiders.

Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus), who had returned to the region, have especially been targeted, forcing them to flee again.

The Resistance Front (TRF) is a Kashmiri Islamist militant organization that was formed in 2019. The TRF targets what it sees as Indian interests in Kashmir, including the military.

In a recent social media post, the TRF said it would "accelerate attacks and prioritize targets" in response to the voting rights change, calling it "demographic terrorism" from India.

The group said it would target all non-Kashmiris including employees, businessmen, tourists and even beggars.

Indian troops continue to fight an anti-India insurgency in Kashmir.

Officially India does not reveal the number of troops deployed in Kashmir. However, according to reports, nearly 1 million soldiers are posted in the region.

There are fears that if Indian soldiers sign up to vote, it could further sway politics away from Kashmiris and increase tensions.