Election in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir was as India’s Prime Minister described it a turning point event for the insurgency infected border State that may enable it to leave the nightmare of militancy behind and get back peace and normality. Admittedly, as the events turned out for the state, the price has been a very heavy one and the spate of mindless indiscriminate terrorist violence can only be the outcome of desperation of those elements whom the prime Minister described as “our enemy.” The unfortunate aspect moreover has been the continued sponsorship that the desperate elements keep getting to perpetuate the reign of terror.[1] The people of the state nevertheless deserve kudos for braving the bullet to exercise their ballot. In fact the polling percentages in the three phases of the poll were "quite close to the kind of averages" most advanced nations experience. even without the kind of threats encountered by the people of Kashmir.[2] The feeling across the international community has been that Indian government has strengthened its credibility vis-à-vis the Kashmir issue with a momentous display of democracy in the state. The exercise has taken the ball away from terrorists and hardliners and passed it on to more moderate elected representatives. The relatively high voter turnout in the face of terrorism, the sheer transparency of the exercise, and the sporting manner in which the losers have made way for the winners, comprising two credible political outfits, has invited praise from all over the world. [3] Washington observers were rather pleased with the elections in Jammu and Kashmir and especially since all efforts were made to keep them "as open and as fair'' as possible. The Bush administration also hoped that the elections would pave the way for early resumption of talks between India and Pakistan.

New Delhi kept hoping that Islamabad would "accept" the results of the successful elections in Jammu and Kashmir even as Islamabad failed "all tests" to end cross-border terrorism as stated by India’s Foreign Secretary, Kanwal Sibal. With terrorism and violence in India Islamabad hoped to continue with its policy of "sustainable terrorism" even indirectly "inciting internal violence.” The ‘success’ of the first two rounds added to the desperation of the militants. There is in fact nothing more ‘life-threatening’ for terrorists and their cause than the prospect of legitimate democratic politics. In the specific context of Kashmir, an added dimension has been that a peaceful poll with a reasonably high voter turnout would significantly weaken Islamabad’s case for being a principal party to the Kashmir dispute. This is of a piece with the increasing domestic flak faced by General Pervez Musharraf for taking a soft line on Kashmir; in the main by his unilateral promise to end cross-border terrorism.[4]

All-Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) termed the electoral process as “undemocratic and unjust" which "is just to divert the attention from the real problem and to overrun the people's desire in Kashmir". The APHC chairman, Abdul Gani Bhat called New Delhi to initiate a comprehensive process involving Pakistan for finding a durable solution. Justifying the armed struggle, he said that Pakistan had no role in violence and it was an "indigenous movement." Bhat maintained that elections had no relevance as far as the demand for right of self-determination was concerned and attributed the voter turnout in the first and second phases of elections to religious faith, local rivalries, the presence of army in border areas, and even coercion by security forces. [5]

The Indian Election Commission said that the violence let loose by militants kept the people away from polling booths during the polls in Jammu and Kashmir. There were some constituencies where intermittent firing from the separatists scared away even few intending voters. Soon after polling ended in the third phase of the Jammu and Kashmir elections, militants detonated a powerful landmine in Ladermad village near Awantipora on the Srinagar-Jammu national highway, blowing up the BSF vehicle.. Militants opened fire at Machhama, Medoora, Bhatnoor, Wagad, Paner, Shikargah, Lam and Kehleel to scare away the voters. As campaigning ended in Doda in the last phase Jaish-e-Mohammad started pressuring voters through hand-written pamphlets, asking them to choose between life and death on October 8 when the district goes to polls in the fourth phase. In his message on the pamphlets, JeM commander for Banihal Fazal-ur-Rehman said: ‘‘Those who vote will get bullets.’’ It also sent these pamphlets to media persons in Banihal who passed them on to police and security forces. A pamphlet signed by Rehman reads: ‘‘JeM ne poll booths aur ummidvaron par hamle karne ki poori taiyari kar rakhi hai... Agar kissi bhi shaks ko vote dalte dekha gaya to voh apne anjam ke liye khud zimmevar hoga. Hamen ummid hai ki log election ka mukkamal boycot karenge (We are prepared to attack booths and the candidates...Anyone who is found casting his vote will be responsible for what happens afterwards. We hope people will boycott the election.’’[6]
However the efforts by militants, the killings on the eve of polls, attacks on candidates and continuous threat from those opposed to elections, made it clear that this was one battle which Pakistan lost by a huge margin.[7] In fact, Jammu and Kashmir voted against militancy and violence, against trifurcation and communalism and for peace. Those who came out, despite threats to their lives, to vote not to make a statement for azadi, for autonomy or for that matter for New Delhi. They wanted a better state government so that their day to day problems would be addressed, their grievances redressed, and their struggle to live made that much easier by a more responsive dispensation in the state. [8]

A redeeming feature of the process was that it was far less vulnerable to accusations large-scale rigging and coercion, thanks to the Government of India's commitment to ensuring a `free and fair' poll and the Election Commission's several initiatives at the organisational and procedural levels to realise that objective, not to speak of the pressure associated with the international scrutiny that the event has attracted. The alacrity with which the poll panel responded to genuine complaints of the Congress and the People's Democratic Party against the deployment of State police personnel for sensitive election-related duties is illustrative of the Commission's acute consciousness about its role as referee. There have, of course, been some allegations of coercion by security personnel, heard particularly during the first phase, but they have largely been in the nature of aberrations, not so pervasive or grave as to discredit the exercise itself. [9]

Not surprisingly therefore , the Election Commission of India came in for some more praise from independent groups which sent their teams to the state to observe the four phases. A survey conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and the Department of Political Science at the University of Jammu had indicated that the 2002 polls were the ‘‘fairest of them all’’. Two NGOs —Institute of Social Sciences and the Dehra Dun-based Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra — certified the elections as ‘‘fair’’, though not entirely free. The groups particularly praised EC’s decision to confine the Special Operations Group to the barracks. [10]
In a very significant development US expected Islamabad to accept the results of the elections in Jammu and Kashmir as precondition both of a dialogue with India or for any US involvement in the dispute between India and Pakistan The US pressure follows Musharraf's claim that Kashmiri voters have been coerced into voting and that the actual turnout was between 2 and 10 per cent.[11] Coming in praise for the conduct of elections the US asked India and Pakistan to resume dialogue on all issues, including Kashmir, and said "lasting settlements" can only be achieved through talks. The assembly elections were important steps that could lead to resumption of dialogue between India and Pakistan but said these could not solve the problems between the two countries. State department spokesman Richard Boucher said that "The United States has always supported free and fair elections in Kashmir, held without outside interference and violence. Throughout this process, we have condemned the extremist attempts to disrupt voting in Kashmir. We are pleased that efforts were made to keep them (elections) as open and as fair as possible.” [12] Boucher commended the Election Commission of India and "the courage of the candidates and voters who chose to participate despite the violence." "The Kashmiri people have shown they want to pursue the path of peace. Calling on India and Pakistan to make a "strenuous effort" towards an early resumption of diplomatic dialogue on all outstanding issues, including Kashmir, Boucher said a lasting settlement, which also reflects the needs of the Kashmiri people, can only be achieved through dialogue.[13]
Russia also hailed the elections as "free and fair'' and said they had opened the way for an early normalisation in the region. ``India's long-standing democratic traditions and smooth electoral mechanisms have determined a free and fair character to the electoral process in the State,'' the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement issued on 14 October. Moscow saw the elections as evidence that the Central Government and the people of Jammu and Kashmir are both "committed to bringing the situation in the State back to normal''. ``Despite attempts by extremist elements to intimidate Kashmiris, they failed to disrupt the vote,'' the Foreign Ministry said, expressing the hope that "the successful elections and the formation of a coalition Government would create fresh opportunities for speedy normalisation in Jammu and Kashmir.''[14]

In a similar attempt the Indian Prime Minister commending the voter turnout in Jammu and Kashmir elections despite violence orchestrated by the terrorists said that people had expressed the view that they were not for Pakistan. "The voter turnout so far has been commendable in the face of the most vicious campaign of threats, intimidation and violence orchestrated from across our borders and aimed at voters and candidates alike." His disappointment was also with "Pakistan-backed'' attempts to sabotage elections in Jammu and Kashmir by violence which suggested that Islamabad had not changed its behaviour and had ``done nothing'' to fulfill its pledges to stop cross-border terrorism. [15]

An opinion poll conducted by AC Nielsen for The Asian Age and Deccan Chronicle in Jammu and Kashmir in the middle of the current elections was remarkable. It destroyed some fondly-held myths. President Pervez Musharraf used two important occasions (Pakistan’s independence day and his speech at the United Nations) to dismiss these elections as a farce. Pakistan has always assumed that given half a chance Kashmiri Muslims would opt for Pakistan. The poll results however showed that the Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, no one wants Kashmir, or any part of it, to merge with Pakistan. Hindus and Sikhs are expected to hold this view. The story was that Kashmiri Muslims also agree. Some 99% of the respondents, including those Muslims who sought independence, were clear that Pakistan was not an option. The two-nation theory is dead. In 55 years Pakistan has destroyed itself as an idea. This is not a sudden fact. It cannot be. The proof of any idea lies in its evolution. The success or the failure of a state is often measured in terms of its economy, but this is a misleading yardstick. For the idea behind a nation to hold it must sustain itself through time, and it must have the ability to find a polity based on free will and social justice. Pakistan was unable to find the strength that comes from shared nation-building.[16]

Thus the poll process stood the critical tests of fairness, transparency and voter-freedom creditably deserving an un-qualified praise for the people of the State, the Election Commission and the various security and military forces that supervised the elections. The country could brush aside accusations about the elections and assert its democratic credentials. The bulk of the Kashmiri voters took considerable risk in coming to the polling booths to exercise their franchise even as the Pakistani terrorists and their hirelings stepped up their blood bath in the State to frustrate polling.[17]

And what are the lessons? From despair and gloom to the first stirrings of optimism, what a tumultuous journey it has been for Jammu and Kashmir. Skeptics sighed when elections were announced: Another rigged exercise, another manufactured outcome and back to the same sense of terminal hopelessness. Fortuitously for the state and its strife-fatigued people, the script got overturned in all respects, except for the terrorist attempts to scuttle the democratic process. That the polls were the fairest in two decades became evident soon enough. But now the results have reinforced the truth.[18]

From across the border, Imran Farooq wrote “time has come to seriously assess the enormity of the damage inflicted on the hapless state of Jammu and Kashmir. This single state is the bone of contention between two war-mongering and belligerent countries, which are mere beggars at the global sphere. Its ethos, culture, social fabric, all lies shattered. A macabre dance of death and destruction has been unleashed on this land of paradise. A Kashmiri stands hapless today - witnessing his own destruction mutely. It looks as if the entire people are besieged by death. Families after families lament the death of their young ones. Young women and girls dare not move out for fear of being molested. The gruesomeness that the people here have faced needs not further description as the facts speak for themselves. There are varying accounts about the number of people killed and about estimates of damage to property. Kashmir is virtually perched on the vast key of destructive weapons meant only to bleed the innocent Kashmiris. The problem, through every perspective, seems complicated, as a lot of blood has been shed. It would be tragic if the enormity of the killings of eighty thousand Kashmiris does not shake our conscience. Then we are worse than animals that do not kill their own kind. What has happened and what is happening now in Kashmir. No description is needed. Innocence is ravaged; fear is writ large on the face of Kashmir.”[19]

Wrote Haseeb A Drabu “there is no denying the need to pay serious attention to the economic reconstruction of Jammu and Kashmir. Apart from the 13 years of debilitating conflict, destruction, and deprivation that have wrecked the economic system, the systemic imbalances caused by 50 years of economic mismanagement also need to be redressed. The critical importance of a political mandate for reconstruction stemming from a resolution of the conflict hardly needs to be underscored. Ideally, a political resolution sanctioned internationally has to be achieved before organised economic and reconstruction assistance can be initiated. But with the political aspects of the problem seemingly intractable, the second-best option could be to try and proceed with reconstruction in a manner that is acceptable to all even with a fig-leaf legitimacy that the new government will have. This is so because, a vibrant and healthy Jammu and Kashmir economy is conducive to all forms of political superstructures - be it independence, autonomy or an accession to India. The initiatives taken by the present governments - the Centre and the state - are characterised by this great temptation to "do whatever it takes" to get results in the short run. A typical example is the excessive government recruitment, particularly on terms and conditions that provide a high degree of "permanence"; or the series of ad hoc and often competing special economic packages and funding processes. These cannot be the solutions. Indeed, the financing and funding by the government of India have become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The aim of seeking "quick wins" and visible results, at the expense of a well-laid-out post-conflict reconstruction process, only complicates matters.[20]

Add to this the report of the UN Secretary General, that stated that “in South Asia, an abrupt escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan during the first half of 2002 created great international anxiety. The situation remains volatile, and an outbreak of hostilities between these two countries with nuclear weapon capabilities has the potential to escalate with terrible consequences."[21]

Nevertheless, polls threw up many messages and perhaps the most positive one of all was the total and unambiguous rejection of the idea of trifurcating the state into the three regions of Jammu, Ladakh and the Kashmir Valley. Several commentators have pointed out that although trifurcation was presented as a division along regional lines, it was not devoid of sectarian overtones and was, in fact, of a piece with the two-nation theory upon which the partition of the sub-continent was based. That’s not all. The logic of trifurcation means that over time not just regions but sub-regions would demand their own political and territorial identity — for instance, a Muslim Kargil would want nothing to do with a Buddhist-dominated Leh, and so on and so forth. It would be redundant to state that such a process would negate everything that the Indian state represents.[22]

Neerja Chowdhury wrote in The Indian Express, Opportunities such as the one thrown up by the J&K elections come but rarely in the life of a nation. Never has there been such a favourable conjuction of circumstances, national and international, to evolve a solution to the problem which has dogged the sub-continent for over five decades. The world has hailed them as a credible exercise. The reasonably good voter turnout, despite heavy odds, showed that the people of the ravaged state want peace and a negotiated settlement. The rejection by Jammu of the idea of trifurcation is no small thing. Of course, it is not without irony that the RSS, Islamabad and several think tanks in the US should all advocate the trifurcation of the state as a step towards a solution. The unstated idea behind it is the creation of a state for the Hindu majority Jammu and a union territory for Buddhist Ladakh — both of which will remain with India — while paving the way for granting a special status for the Muslim-dominated Valley. Of course, the RSS, Islamabad and the American think tanks have their own ideas on what the special status for the Valley could be.[23]

[1] The Hindu, 1 October 2002

[2] Amit Baruah The Hindu, 5 October 2002

[3] Chidanand Rajghatta The Times of India, 11 October 2002

[4] Editorial The Times of India, 2 October 2002

[5] The Hindu, 1 October 2002

[6] The Indian Express, 7 October 2002

[7] Brij Bhardwaj The Pioneer, 3 October 2002.

[8] Seema Mustafa The Asian Age, 3 October 2002

[9] Editorial The Hindu, 3 October 2002

[10] Kota Neelima The Indian Express, 10 October 2002

[11] Mubashir Zaidi Hindustan Times, 3 October 2002.

[12] Greater Kashmir 11 October 2002

[13] The Times of India 11 October 2002

[14] Vladimir Radyuhin The Hindu, 15 October 2002

[15] The Hindu, 8 October 2002

[16] M.J. Akbar The Asian Age, 4 October 2002

[17] Tukoji R. Pandit Pakistan defeated at Kashmir polling booth The Daily Excelsior, 4 October 2002

[18] New Beginning EDITORIAL The Times of India, 11 October 2002

[19] Greater Kashmir, 4 October 2002

[20] Greater Kashmir, 6 October 2002

[21] Dawn, 6 October 2002

[22] The Indian Express 12 October 2002

[23] The Indian Express, 14 October 2002

Compiled from media sources

By

Arabinda Acharya