India is indebted to American political system in many ways. It borrowed the idea of written constitution from U.S. Concepts of Fundamental Rights and Judicial Review of legislations has also been adopted from American political system. This one way traffic of ideas continued from a long time. Now the situation has changed altogether. The movement of ideas and services is not immune to phenomenon of globalization and free trade. The one way traffic has been transformed into two way traffic. On one side cyber coolies of India are in great demand in U.S. Use of elections as tool to provide cover of legitimacy to predetermined results is also finding favour with U.S. policy makers in a big way. Election for this purpose has already been held in Afghanistan and in Iraq. People of these countries have no alternative but to boycott the elections as Kashmiri’s have been doing for so many years.
Election boycott is not a new phenomenon to Kashmir. It was National Conference which initiated boycott of elections in the state. When Maharaja Hari Singh decided to create Praja Parishad and hold elections for it in 1946, Sheikh Abdullah (1905-1982) scared of popularity of Muslim Conference decided to keep his National Conference away from the polls. Muslims of the Jammu region including those of Pakistan administered Kashmir were associated with Muslim Conference. Same was the situation in the valley. Sheikh could not penetrate villages of Kashmir valley until he introduced land reforms. After 1947 the first election was conducted in 1952 under NC rule. Seventy three out of seventy five members of the State Legislative Assembly were elected ‘unopposed’. Only two seats experienced elections that too in Jammu region. The legacy of facilitating elections without voting continued after the dethronement of Sheikh Abdullah. Sixty five out of seventy five candidates of the ruling party got elected “unopposed” in 1957. Once out of power, Sheikh Abdullah again resorted to election boycott under the platform of Mahaze-i-Rai Shumari (Plebiscite Front). Isolation of masses from elections continued up to 1971. In 1972 Sheikh Abdullah decided to contest elections. The Central govt. blocked this attempt by keeping state out of bounds for the Shiekh.
Previously Indian government projected boycott of elections as an undemocratic exercise. Once Sheikh decided to contest they made it a point to block his participation. Sheikh and his revived NC were only allowed to contest after they made a compromise with the India Government in 1975. Although the agreement, concluded between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi & Sheikh Abdullah, was projected to be an instrument of protecting autonomy of the state yet it actually created a paradigm within which Sheikh had to work. He was made to renounce all his slogans of restoring State Autonomy and self determination. Soon after coming to power, Sheikh made it a point to ensure that his National Conference gets elected uncontested. Those who dared to contest where subjected to oppression and tyranny. Jammat-i-Islami which challenged Shiekh in 1975 elections was banned immediately after elections. All its educational institutions where closed down. Subsequently when Jammat tried to contest elections in 1977 it had to pay a heavy price for opposing Sheikh. On the pretext of retaliations against executions of Z.A. Bhutto ( 1927-1979) a reign of loot and plunder was initiated against its workers. Nineteen hundred and eighty nine elections where bungled and results fabricated, catalyzing the insurgency which is continuing even now.
The parties which represent aspirations of the people of state have no choice but to boycott. Their participations does not make any difference. In fact Kashmiris did participate in elections for two decades. What they experienced were manipulations to defeat Farooq Rehmani in early seventies and large scale bungling associated with public thrashing of Syed Salahudin towards the end of eighties. A former Police Chief of the State once confessed in a seminar that identification of electoral staff has always been prerogative of ruling parties and their candidates in all elections of the state. The participation simply becomes a camouflage to cover an unholy exercise of imposing and legitimizing alien occupation in the garb of democracy.
Internally Kashmiris either boycott elections or are denied right of participations in elections. Internationally holding of elections is projected as a substitute for right of self determination. UN Security Council in its resolution on 24 Jan 1957 rejected this plea and reaffirmed that constitution of an assembly and any action on the part of that assembly would not constitute disposition of the state in accordance with the principal of self determination. The author of this article had personal experience of observing and participation in election process as polling and counting agent in seventies. In parliamentary elections of 2004 he happened to be presiding officer in one of the booths of Anantnag constituency. The polling booth being located in vicinity of a cantonment was immune to any sort of pressure from the militants. A middle class suburb of the district headquarters with most of resident’s government employees was expected to experience high turnout of voters. Contrary to expectations no one came for voting. At 10.A.M. a group of Para military forces came to the booth to enquire about pattern of voting. When they were told that none had come to cast vote. They asked the staff to cast fake votes. When the staff refused to entertain their suggestions, they came out of the booth and communicated to local police that they were planning to forcibly compel the voters to come for voting in the afternoon. They couldn’t do so probably due to location of the pooling booth within a densely populated area. This clearly indicated that the Para military forces do indulge in coercion to facilitate a degree of turnout of votes in order to complete the assigned targets. They do it either on their own initiative or are directed to do so by the state agencies. At times it is a local village head who seeks their intervention to facilitate the turnout that he has promised to party of his liking. Sometimes he on his own invents rumors that local unit of para military forces will ascertain whether villagers had voted or not and penalize those who defy them. At times security agencies actively indulge in coercion mostly in remote areas.
It is obvious that election in the state of J&K is not an exercise for electing the state administration or representatives of people. It is simply a means of falsely portraying before international community that Kashmiris do administer their own state and this right is exercised through elections. It is this institutionalized practice of camouflaging predetermined results that is re-shaping American political thought in the context of the areas which they have occupied in recent past.
Election boycott is not a new phenomenon to Kashmir. It was National Conference which initiated boycott of elections in the state. When Maharaja Hari Singh decided to create Praja Parishad and hold elections for it in 1946, Sheikh Abdullah (1905-1982) scared of popularity of Muslim Conference decided to keep his National Conference away from the polls. Muslims of the Jammu region including those of Pakistan administered Kashmir were associated with Muslim Conference. Same was the situation in the valley. Sheikh could not penetrate villages of Kashmir valley until he introduced land reforms. After 1947 the first election was conducted in 1952 under NC rule. Seventy three out of seventy five members of the State Legislative Assembly were elected ‘unopposed’. Only two seats experienced elections that too in Jammu region. The legacy of facilitating elections without voting continued after the dethronement of Sheikh Abdullah. Sixty five out of seventy five candidates of the ruling party got elected “unopposed” in 1957. Once out of power, Sheikh Abdullah again resorted to election boycott under the platform of Mahaze-i-Rai Shumari (Plebiscite Front). Isolation of masses from elections continued up to 1971. In 1972 Sheikh Abdullah decided to contest elections. The Central govt. blocked this attempt by keeping state out of bounds for the Shiekh.
Previously Indian government projected boycott of elections as an undemocratic exercise. Once Sheikh decided to contest they made it a point to block his participation. Sheikh and his revived NC were only allowed to contest after they made a compromise with the India Government in 1975. Although the agreement, concluded between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi & Sheikh Abdullah, was projected to be an instrument of protecting autonomy of the state yet it actually created a paradigm within which Sheikh had to work. He was made to renounce all his slogans of restoring State Autonomy and self determination. Soon after coming to power, Sheikh made it a point to ensure that his National Conference gets elected uncontested. Those who dared to contest where subjected to oppression and tyranny. Jammat-i-Islami which challenged Shiekh in 1975 elections was banned immediately after elections. All its educational institutions where closed down. Subsequently when Jammat tried to contest elections in 1977 it had to pay a heavy price for opposing Sheikh. On the pretext of retaliations against executions of Z.A. Bhutto ( 1927-1979) a reign of loot and plunder was initiated against its workers. Nineteen hundred and eighty nine elections where bungled and results fabricated, catalyzing the insurgency which is continuing even now.
The parties which represent aspirations of the people of state have no choice but to boycott. Their participations does not make any difference. In fact Kashmiris did participate in elections for two decades. What they experienced were manipulations to defeat Farooq Rehmani in early seventies and large scale bungling associated with public thrashing of Syed Salahudin towards the end of eighties. A former Police Chief of the State once confessed in a seminar that identification of electoral staff has always been prerogative of ruling parties and their candidates in all elections of the state. The participation simply becomes a camouflage to cover an unholy exercise of imposing and legitimizing alien occupation in the garb of democracy.
Internally Kashmiris either boycott elections or are denied right of participations in elections. Internationally holding of elections is projected as a substitute for right of self determination. UN Security Council in its resolution on 24 Jan 1957 rejected this plea and reaffirmed that constitution of an assembly and any action on the part of that assembly would not constitute disposition of the state in accordance with the principal of self determination. The author of this article had personal experience of observing and participation in election process as polling and counting agent in seventies. In parliamentary elections of 2004 he happened to be presiding officer in one of the booths of Anantnag constituency. The polling booth being located in vicinity of a cantonment was immune to any sort of pressure from the militants. A middle class suburb of the district headquarters with most of resident’s government employees was expected to experience high turnout of voters. Contrary to expectations no one came for voting. At 10.A.M. a group of Para military forces came to the booth to enquire about pattern of voting. When they were told that none had come to cast vote. They asked the staff to cast fake votes. When the staff refused to entertain their suggestions, they came out of the booth and communicated to local police that they were planning to forcibly compel the voters to come for voting in the afternoon. They couldn’t do so probably due to location of the pooling booth within a densely populated area. This clearly indicated that the Para military forces do indulge in coercion to facilitate a degree of turnout of votes in order to complete the assigned targets. They do it either on their own initiative or are directed to do so by the state agencies. At times it is a local village head who seeks their intervention to facilitate the turnout that he has promised to party of his liking. Sometimes he on his own invents rumors that local unit of para military forces will ascertain whether villagers had voted or not and penalize those who defy them. At times security agencies actively indulge in coercion mostly in remote areas.
It is obvious that election in the state of J&K is not an exercise for electing the state administration or representatives of people. It is simply a means of falsely portraying before international community that Kashmiris do administer their own state and this right is exercised through elections. It is this institutionalized practice of camouflaging predetermined results that is re-shaping American political thought in the context of the areas which they have occupied in recent past.
No comments:
Post a Comment