Is The Jammu and Kashmir Election A Quest For Political Agency?

In the run-up to its first assembly election in 10 years, Jammu and Kashmir is charged with a mix of hope and fear, possibilities and anxieties, apathy and interest.

The much-anticipated election comes against the backdrop of the recent surge in cross-border terror attacks in the Jammu region, reigniting the India-Pakistan debate and signalling a shift in militant tactics.

This raises critical questions about what the election means to Kashmiris and whether it will impact relations between the two neighbouring countries.

On August 5, 2019, the Indian government fulfilled its long-standing electoral promise by abrogating Article 370 of the Constitution through a presidential order, effectively revoking Jammu and Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status.

This move, celebrated as a step towards national “integration”, left many Kashmiris feeling like “second-class citizens” under the BJP-led government.

When the government unilaterally stripped Kashmir’s limited autonomy and statehood in 2019, it claimed to wipe out decades-old armed rebellion in the region, ushering a new period of development and peace.

However, peace has remained elusive. A shift in militancy has posed fresh challenges to the state, with recurring ambushes and attacks on security forces in Jammu.

These cross-border attacks have been carried out by foreign nationals who infiltrate the border via Jammu’s difficult terrain, which has less connectivity and a shortage of military forces, having been redeployed to the Line of Actual Control in the aftermath of the 2020 India-China standoff.

The geographical shift in attacks is a tactical move by Pakistan that aims to keep the Kashmir issue alive by stoking violence. From May to July this year, there have been 11 terror attacks in Jammu alone.

Amid the recent rise in militancy and geographical shift in attacks, concerns have emerged that upcoming elections in Jammu and Kashmir could strain India-Pakistan relationship. However, this seems to be far-fetched.

Elections in Jammu and Kashmir are not unprecedented; they have historically coexisted with intense conflict and insurgency, particularly during the peak of militancy in the 1990s and beyond.

What remains to be seen, however, is the significance of these elections to Kashmiris who have been deprived of democratic processes since the abrogation of Article 370.

People’s political agency

The participation of Kashmiris in the election can be seen as an expression of political agency, especially among young people who have experienced a decade of disconnect, deprivation and a deep sense of alienation.

However, this agency will operate in a limited and restrictive framework, constantly negotiating with the hegemonic structures of power in New Delhi.

A recent example is the amendment to Transactions of Business Rules by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, which expanded the administrative power of the New Delhi-appointed Lieutenant Governor while diluting the power of the elected chief minister in the region.

The election will serve as a referendum on the watershed moment of August 2019 that stripped the erstwhile state of its special privileges and status.

Taking cues from the high voter turnout in Kashmir during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, it is likely that the Assembly election will witness a similar or even higher level of political participation.

This marks a shift in the attitude of Kashmiris towards electoral democracy, which many previously viewed as a meaningless exercise.

This sentiment was reflected in the lowest voter turnout during the 2014 parliamentary elections, when widespread boycott calls resounded across the Valley.

Similarly, the first election after the abrogation in 2020 too witnessed a low voter turnout, raising questions on democracy in Jammu and Kashmir. While this election is significant for domestic politics, it also intersects with foreign policy, particularly in the context of India-Pakistan relations.

Jammu and Kashmir has been the longest-standing bilateral territorial dispute between India and Pakistan, entangled in an intractable conflict where each side seeks to validate their moral and legal position by invoking ideology and discourse — both in political rhetoric and practice of the state.

Pakistan military’s influence

It is true a state’s domestic politics has a crucial role in foreign policy and vice versa. Pakistan’s engagement in the war in Kashmir in 1947 created an opportunity for the military to exert its influence over the country’s domestic politics, marking the beginning of the militarisation of the Pakistani state.

This militarisation, closely tied to the idea of nationalism and Islam, shaped the ideology that anchored Pakistan’s decisions on a range of national and international issues, with a focus on Jammu and Kashmir that significantly impacted Islamabad’s bilateral ties with New Delhi over successive years.

The ideology that the Pakistani state employed as a “signpost” in its Kashmir policy was further strengthened and reinforced by irredentist discourse that legitimised the instrumentalisation of Islam on this issue. The ideological ferment on Kashmir in Pakistan draws from the discourse framed by the military state.

In highlighting the plurality of views that exist in Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, political scholar Samina Yasmeen argues that “for a majority of Pakistanis, Kashmir remains an unfinished agenda of the partition.”

This “unfinished agenda” continues to influence the present, with the Pakistani military advocating for asymmetric warfare, despite the domestic political chaos at home.

Given the mounting challenges that emanate from Pakistan’s approach towards Jammu and Kashmir, India needs to reimagine its Kashmir policy, ensuring the rights of civilians are protected and the repression of political freedoms and civil liberties in the Valley is ended.

Elections alone do not suffice to establish a true democracy. It is time to move beyond procedural democracy — which has always been limited, inconsistent and flawed in Kashmir — and instead focus on fostering and integrating it with substantive participatory democracy that addresses deeper issues affecting the people in the region.

India’s rise as a security state with a robust and extensive system of surveillance in the Valley has not produced the anticipated “peace” following the 2019 abrogation.

With national security challenges from across the border, building a forged model of democracy — that remains deeply entwined with the unending conflict and repression — is unlikely to yield democratic dividends.

(Published under Creative Commons from 360info. Read the original article here)