Lessons from Kashmir

Published : Dec 06, 2002 00:00 IST

In spite of its limitations in situations where fundamentalist and extra-parliamentary groups are active, the Election Commission did its best to ensure free and fair elections in Jammu and Kashmir.

PANTHER'S Party chief Bhim Singh charged that the Election Commission (E.C.) was an "agent of Farooq Abdullah". The People's Democratic Party (PDP) threatened to withdraw from the elections apprehending massive rigging in south Kashmir. State Congress(I) president Ghulam Nabi Azad made clear to his confidants that he had little hopes that the elections would be truly fair. Today, without exception, all of them hail the recent round of Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir as the most fair the State has ever seen. This illustrates just how important the E.C. has been to establishing the credibility of democracy in the state - and just how important it is likely to be in Gujarat.

But the experience of Jammu and Kashmir also holds out important lessons about the limitations of the E.C.'s authority, particularly its ability to contain fundamentalist groups that care little for the democratic system.

Chief Election Commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh planned the elections in Jammu and Kashmir with all the precision of a military campaign. Election Commissioner T.S. Krishnamurthy finished a first round of inspection in the State at the beginning of August. Soon afterwards, plans were finalised for drafting in observers from outside the State. Complaints from Opposition parties about administrative bias were rapidly addressed. For example, Additional Director-General of Police P.S. Gill was relieved of his control of security arrangements for candidates because of allegations that he was close to the National Conference (N.C.). As the four-phase election campaign progressed, other key figures in the administration also faced similar action.

Doda lost both its Superintendent of Police, Vijay Singh Sambyal, and its Deputy Commissioner, G.N. Sofi. Udhampur Deputy Commissioner Shailendra Kumar was also transferred, along with Poonch Deputy Commissioner Ejaz Iqbal and the Superintendent of Police in charge of Jammu's border areas, Gulzar Singh Salathia.

That over 50 important government functionaries were transferred, and that several hundreds received official reprimands for partisan conduct, give some idea of the scale of the intervention of the E.C. One specific area of confrontation with the N.C. government has, however, acquired particular importance. In a recent television interview, Lyngdoh said the E.C. had, through a series of last-minute actions, succeeded in terminating plans by "a section of the police" to rig elections in south Kashmir. The barb was widely interpreted as being directed at the Special Operations Group (SOG) of the Jammu and Kashmir Police. The SOG had been central to complaints from the Opposition of poll malpractice and had attracted Lyngdoh's attention early on. As early as August 23, Lyngdoh was reported to have told a television channel that the E.C. had directed the State government to put "outfits such as the Special Operations Group, consisting of surrendered ultras, under the operational command of the Army and paramilitary forces".

Days after the PDP threatened to pull out of the elections, the E.C. took further action. At a media conference on September 29, State Chief Electoral Officer Pramod Jain announced that the SOG would be confined to their lines until Electronic Voting Machines were deposited in strong rooms after the completion of the third phase. Jain said that the action had been taken in response to complaints about the SOG's role in the earlier phases of polling. "Most of these apprehensions were pre-emptive, though some may have justifications," Jain said. On September 3, early in the campaign process, now-Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed complained that "hundreds of workers of the PDP and other political parties are being harassed by the surrendered militants during canvassing". He said: "We have written to the E.C. but no action has been taken so far."

There is little doubt that the E.C.'s action, taken in the face of furious protests from the police establishment, contributed much to establish confidence in the election process. It is interesting to note, however, that malpractice was alleged by candidates in several areas, often those where the N.C. ended up losing. After the completion of voting in Doda, for example, independent candidate Mohammad Iqbal and Panther's Party candidate Satpal told reporters that the SOG captured several booths at the behest of the ruling N.C., which misused state machinery to "massively rig the poll". In fact, the constituency saw the defeat of Minister of State for Home Khalid Suhrawardy. Some candidates continue to insist there was large-scale rigging. On October 27, Ghulam Qadir Mir and Abdul Haq, both affiliated to the secessionist People's League, said there had been "massive rigging and manipulations of election results". Their party colleague Ghulam Mohammad Sofi, whose campaign succeeded, is now a key independent in the ruling coalition.

Indeed, the Jammu and Kashmir election campaign saw a curiously Gujarat-like phenomenon - the ruling formation alleging that the E.C. was biased against it. On October 3, party chief and Union Minister of State for Home Omar Abdullah complained that his party's grievances were not receiving a fair hearing from the E.C. Among the demands was the one that Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh be barred from campaigning in the Jammu region, since personnel under the control of his administration had been drafted for election and security duties. Other complaints had more to do with local issues. N.C. leader Rafiq Ahmad Mir alleged that PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti had used one-time terrorists to intimidate his supporters. In a written complaint to the E.C., Mir said the PDP leader had "organised renegades and surrendered militants", who threatened voters in many areas not to come out to cast their ballot. While the PDP had accused the N.C. of using surrendered terrorists for poll rigging, in Anantnag it backed the campaign of the leader of a group of these elements, represented by Liaqat Ali Khan.

Although all of this might be put down as unimportant as it emanates from disgruntled losers, it does point to serious questions the E.C. might once again encounter, albeit in a different fashion, in Gujarat. In important senses, the elections in Jammu and Kashmir were unfair to the N.C. This was not because of anything the E.C. did, but because of the prevailing circumstances. The party was singled out by terrorist formations, and it lost dozens of cadre in the course of its campaign. Often, those very terrorist formations supported PDP candidates at the local level, thus prodding its supporters towards the polling booths and frightening away those of the N.C. The N.C. sought to use the armed state apparatus at its command to redress the balance of terror, and the E.C. responded in the only way it could have done. The situation in Gujarat is, of course, different, but the fact remains that the Jammu and Kashmir elections exposed the limitations of law. The laws the E.C. is now enforcing with rigour and honesty have limited influence in situations where fundamentalist and extra-parliamentary groups have influence, whether they be Hizbul Mujahideen or the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

Another issue, little noticed in the course of the Jammu and Kashmir elections, may also be important in Gujarat. Despite the E.C.'s best efforts, only a small fraction of the Kashmiri Pandit community, exiled from the valley by fundamentalist terror, chose to exercise their franchise. Part of the reason for this may be the election boycott call issued by the Kashmir Pandit organisation, Panun Kashmir, which argued that no meaningful democratic process could take place in the violence-scarred context of the State. But, more important, it points to the possible loss of belief among refugees in democracy and democratic means. If this experience repeats itself in Gujarat, the E.C. will not be to blame: its job is only to create the means to work a democratic system. It will, however, illustrate that the elections in Gujarat might do little to erase the wounds the communal pogrom this year has inflicted on India's polity.

Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment