Much-publicised state legislative assembly elections are due this
September
in the Indian-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The most influential political
alliance of the state, All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), has already
ruled out any chance of participation in the forthcoming polls as it
describes New Delhi as an oppressor. Thus, refuting the validity of the
Indian constitution in the disputed state. APHC seeks resolution of the
dispute through trilateral talks between Pakistan, India and the
Kashmiris.
The Hurriyat used the same plea to boycott the last assembly elections
held
in 1996. Still, some Hurriyat leaders have expressed their conditional
willingness to participate in the polls, if managed by an independent,
neutral commission. The other main condition seeks the Indian yes for the
elected representatives the right to discuss the future fate of Kashmiris
in
terms of their geographical and political association. However, none of
these moderates is ready to contest polls under the aegis of Indian
election
commission. Former APHC chairman Mirwaiz Umer Farooq believes, "The
Kashmiris have been totally disillusioned by the Indian election
commission."
New Delhi and Farooq Abdullah have always been challenging the
representative character of Hurriyat since long. The Indian establishment
portrays that the APHC has no popularity among masses and the 23 party
alliance is merely a Pakistan-sponsored organisation. The western capitals
and media have partly bought this Indian plea. To counter the challenge of
credibility and popularity, on February 12 the Hurriyat conference
announced
to form a six-member independent 'Jammu and Kashmir People's Election
Commission' to supervise private elections in the J&K state. The Indian
government did not accept the challenge by rejecting the commission. New
Delhi termed the proposed elections and election commission 'outside the
constitutional framework'.
As a matter of fact, all pro-freedom political parties had been contesting
elections. Even Syed Salahuddin, supreme commander of Hizbul Mujahideen,
himself contested election in March 1987 from a Srinagar constituency.
The
Indian government made a blunder by putting all such leader behind the
bars.
The ground was left open for Farooq Abdullah who became the chief minister
after massive rigging at the behest of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
The 1987 election rigging sucked all the faith the Kashmiris had in the
Indian election commission and democracy. The younger generation opted for
gun while their elders started political resistance against New Delhi
rule.
The Indian government used all available resources to clamp down the
resistance struggle. This time, India had lost the game. It failed win
over
the public support since then.
However, India seems to have learnt from its earlier blunder. The BJP
regime
has given the 2002 state assembly elections a central place in its
'control-Kashmir' strategy. It is in this context that Delhi is employing
some softer techniques to gain maximum from some frustrated elements in
the
pro-freedom camp. The focus is to make the elections process credible and
broad-based. In the same connection, head of the Kashmir affairs at Prime
Minister Office who is a former RAW chief, A S Dullat, held many round of
talks with some Hurriyat and other pro-freedom elements during a recent
visit to the valley. Dullat offered them handful of incentives. He tried
to
play the autonomy card with the pro-freedom leadership. He offered them
the
same if they participate in elections. India had already rejected the
autonomy demand of the National Conference.
Delhi also offered the APHC leadership to form a government of their
choice
if they participate and win the elections. Speaking about the J&K state
assembly polls, the Indian Prime Minister promised on August 15, 2001 to
"ensure free and fair elections". The Hindu newspaper quoted Mr. Vajpayee
on
May 12 as saying, "The coming elections to the Jammu and Kashmir Assemble
are not only free and fair but also include every shade of public opinion
that wishes to be involved in the democratic process." British Foreign
Secretary Jack straw added a new dimension to the election issue when he
said "I believe that the Indian government understand this- that they are
held in a climate of peace and security and with proper facilities for
external monitors."
This time, India is in slightly bitter position to improve the turnout
compared to the past a Delhi has been investing huge money and human
energy
to convince people to cast their votes. The Indian government, thus
managed
to create a minority group comprising frustrated and status-seeking
elements. Some senior Kashmiris in the valley believe that APHC boycott
announcement would not earn landslide following unlike the past owing to a
host of factors.
In this backdrop, the bigger challenge before Hurriyat is to convince the
world capitals of its demand for the boycott. As after September world is
not in mood to differentiate between the genuine resistance and armed
struggle. They are all pressing Hurriyat to participate in election and
prove its following and its right to speck on behalf of the people. On the
eve of 1996 elections, US Deputy Foreign Secretary Robin Rafael personally
intervened in the issue and tried her best to convince the Hurriyat to
participate in the state elections. Now US Ambassador to India Blackwill
has
been repeating the same line of action. Strangely enough, Michel Krepon, a
US expert on South Asia, met Abdul Majeed Dar for three hours in Srinagar.
Insiders say that Krepon tried to convince Dar to join the mainstream
politics and contest elections. This gives an impression that the
Americans
are giving assurances, at least privately, to militants for safety of
their
lives and political career if they join mainstream politics. Krepon has
become the first American to have openly interacted with a militant
Kashmiri
leader during the last 12 years old freedom struggle.
It is emerging as a likely development that some key pro-freedom elements
may participate in elections if they find some reason to justify their
followers.
Within the state, Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah seems the happiest man on
the decision of APHC election boycott as it provides him a yet another
chance for safe ride to power. As part of his strategy to continue his
rule
in the state, Farooq has been arresting the second line leadership of the
Hurriyat for the last many month under different draconian laws like POTA
and Public Safety Act.
Interestingly, hopes are high in the Indian establishment that militants
would not be able to sabotage the state assembly elections as Pakistan is
under the international pressure to cooperate in 'war against terrorism'.
At
&the same time, the human cost for a militant to cross over into
Indian-occupied Kashmir is fast escalating with the provision of
sophisticated surveillance equipment by the US.
With all eyes of the state assembly elections, the month of September
brings
opportunity for both India as well as Kashmiris. If the Kashmiris accept
the
APHC call and make the boycott a real success, the Indians will fail to
impress upon the world of their occupation of the state.
