For the past fifty-two years, India has vigorously and adamantly
argued that participation of the Kashmiri people in the electoral
process in the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir has been a
substitute for a plebiscite to be held in accordance with the United
Nations Security Council’s resolutions.
The electoral boycott challenged India’s manipulative electoral
history in the disputed region. Almost the entire population
resisted threats of violence if they refused to participate. The
Kashmiri people have demonstrated time and again that they will only
accept a UN-sponsored and supervised vote to determine their future.
So once again, India’s fraudulent elections in occupied Kashmir
turned out to be a complete failure and signaled the beginning of
the end of India’s occupation.
On Monday October 27th, 1947, while deploying the
troops in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, India proclaimed that it
will restore normalcy in the region and allow the Kashmiri people to
exercise the right of self-determination in accordance with their
freely expressed will, unhindered by any threat of internal disorder
or external aggression. Deceitfully, India did exactly the opposite.
New Delhi tried to gradually strengthen its grip over the area by
means, fair and foul, unmindful of its international commitments
that the future of the disputed territory shall be determined by the
people in a UN-supervised plebiscite.
Historical records demonstrate that elections in the disputed
Jammu and Kashmir have never been free and fair. During the past
fifty-two years, the people of Kashmir have helplessly watched as
so-called public representatives, puppet legislatures and puppet
Governments were formed and then thrown out while the dissenters
have been kept at bay through the abuse and misuse of law and
At the UN Security Council, during the debate on Resolution 91
(1951) concerning the India-Pakistan question, which was submitted
jointly by the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United
Sates of America, and adopted by the Security Council on March 30th,
1951, the Indian representative, B.N. Rau, assured the Council that
his government’s view is that while the "Constituent Assembly" may,
if it so desires, express an opinion on the question of the future
disposition of the State, it cannot act upon it.
Resolution 91 (1951) Dated March 30th, 1951, states:
Observing that the Governments of India and Pakistan have
accepted the provisions of the United Nations Commission for India
and Pakistan resolutions of August 13th, 1948, and
January 5th, 1949, and have reaffirmed their desire that
the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided
through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite
conducted under the auspices of the United Nations,
Observing that on October 27th, 1950, the General
Council of the "All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference" adopted a
resolution recommending the convening of a Constituent Assembly for
the purpose of determining the "future shape and affiliations of the
State of Jammu and Kashmir"; observing further from statements of
responsible authorities that action is proposed to convene such a
Constituent Assembly and that the area from which such a Constituent
Assembly would be elected is only a part of the whole territory of
Jammu and Kashmir.
Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the
principle embodied in its resolutions 47 (1948) of April 21st,
1948, 51 (1948) of June 3rd, 1948, and 80 (1950) of March
14th, 1950 and the United Nations Commission for India
and Pakistan resolutions of August 13th, 1948, and
January 5th, 1949, that the final disposition of the
State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will
of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and
impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United
Affirming that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as
recommended by the General Council of the "All Jammu and Kashmir
National Conference" and any action that Assembly might attempt to
take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire
State or any part thereof would not constitute a disposition of the
State in accordance with the above principle,
Declaring its belief that it is the duty of the Security Council
in carrying out its primary responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security to aid the parties to reach an
amicable solution of the Kashmir dispute and that a prompt
settlement of this dispute is of vital importance to the maintenance
of international peace and security…
New Delhi, contrary to the Security Council Resolution 91 (1951),
appointed all the members of the so-called Constituent Assembly and
declared them elected. Fraudulently, India had forced Sheikh
Abdullah, President of the All Jammu and Kashmir National
Conference, to declare accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir
to India. He, however, resisted and was arrested sparking widespread
protest. In an attempt to control the protest, the Indian army
killed more that 100 civilians and arrested thousands.
Sheikh Abdullah and his close associates founded the "Plebiscite
Front" - a new party to demand Kashmiris
right of self-determination. In January 1958, Sheikh was released,
however his vocal support for a UN-sponsored plebiscite led to his
re-arrest in April the same year.
Elections were again held in 1957 and 1962. On each occasion the
Indian-sponsored All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference was
declared victorious winning nearly all the seats uncontested.
Following a pro-plebiscite demonstration in Srinagar in October
1967, the entire opposition leadership was arrested and the
government of Ghulam Mohammed Sadiq was declared re-elected almost
India’s manipulative elections in the disputed territory have
offered no choice to the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine
their future affiliation in accordance with the UN resolutions.
Moreover, elections in the occupied territory have always been
staged, rigged and controlled.
Not a single member that was elected in these fraudulent
elections to the Legislative Assembly or to the Indian Parliament
have genuinely reflected the opinions, desires, urges and grievances
of the people of Kashmir.
The government machinery was consistently used every time to help
Indian agents tamper with ballot boxes and thereby enable polling
officers to declare the victory of an official candidate.
New Delhi’s reckless attempts to control the disputed territory
through rigged elections has only served to fuel resentment among
the Kashmiri population. In March 1987 the Kashmiri people
reluctantly participated in elections, but massive vote rigging and
intimidation of candidates didn’t convince them it could work.
Since then, the people of Kashmir have overwhelmingly boycotted
Indian organised elections conducted under the barrel of the gun. In
the November 1989 election, no more than 3 per cent participated. In
the May1996, when elections were held for the Jammu and Kashmir
Legislative Assembly, people were dragged to the polling stations by
Indian forces. India Today confirmed it in its June 15th,
1996 issue: "the election were being rigged once again. Ballot boxes
were not being stuffed like they were in 1987 when Farooq Abdullah
had gone overboard to ensure the defeat of the Muslim United Front (MUF)
The September 1996 elections were again massively boycotted: "The
people of the Kashmir valley are not in favour of elections. This
was demonstrated through anti-election demonstrations in Pulwama,
Tral and Srinagar … in Pulwama, not even a single vote was polled
until 12:30 pm. In many centres in Anantnag, the poll percentage was
less than 6 per cent by 4:00 pm, one hour before polling ended,"
reported The Times of India on Saturday September 28th,
A well-known Kashmiri Hindu and prominent political commentator
on Jammu and Kashmir, Prem Nath Bazaz, said: "…to hoodwink world
opinion and silence the democratic forces in the state, elections
were periodically staged, but India had the final say in who got in,
extent of rigging and the supply of funds."
Elections 1999 and the Media
The polling for six Lok Sabha seats in Jammu and Kashmir was
carried out in four phases. In Srinagar and Ladakh constituencies on
Sunday September 5th, in Jammu and Udhampur on Saturday
September 11th, in Baramullah on Saturday September 18th,
and in Islamabad (Anantnag) on Monday October 4th.
The boycott of voters that began with the polling in Srinagar on
Sunday September 5th, 1999, continued up until the final
phase of Anantnag constituency on Monday October 4th.
"NC sets new record in rigging poll," wrote: The Kashmir Times
on Monday September 6th: "Taking full advantage of the
poll boycott, the ruling National Conference [NC] managed to cast
large number of bogus votes not only in this city but in other parts
of Srinagar-Budgam Lok Sabha constituency, as well. The ruling party
legislators and ministers had to rely on their bogus voters, most of
who were not even from the Srinagar constituency, to make the son of
their boss victorious. Some burqa [veil] clad women also formed part
of the ruling party’s force. They enjoyed the day as they travelled
in Sumos, Gypsies and mini buses from one polling
station to the other and cast as much votes as possible…"
"Vote swings in the valley," wrote an editorial The Hindustan
Times on Wednesday September 8th: "Of course, it is
not enough to say that the low turn-out was a product of the cynical
attitudes which come so easily to the urban middle class population.
On the other hand, if one were to argue that it was a response to
the All-Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) call for a boycott of the
vote, it would be interesting to see how it had worked out on the
"Kashmir stays away," wrote The Asian Age in an editorial
on Thursday September 9th: "The security forces
efforts to bring out voters at gunpoint is particularly regrettable
and deserves to be condemned by all democratic forces. It is true
that the collective mistakes of the politicians over the years has
placed Kashmir in a show case for the international scrutiny but
these vulgar methods cannot be conducive to peace in the long run."
"Message of poll boycott," wrote: The Kashmir Times in an
editorial on Thursday September 9th: "…In the report of
the people present there, that unprecedented rigging had been
resorted to for ensuring the victory of the chief minister’s son
then one is left with uncomfortable feeling that not even 10% of the
voters have cast their votes. In the first place this extreme low
turnout indicates the depth of alienation of the common Kashmiri,
cutting across scarcely visible, ethno denominational barriers."
"Value of Apathy," wrote: The Telegraph in an editorial on
Thursday September 9th: "The results from the crucial
Srinagar constituency, the geographical heart of Kashmiriyat,
represent a setback for hopes of overcoming Kashmiri alienation.
Srinagar town itself has been written off by most parties as a lost
cause, so strong is public apathy and the All-Parties Hurriyat
Conference’s influence. Disturbingly this apathy now seems to have
spread to the constituency’s rural segments -
traditional National Conference strongholds. Pakistan has already
started ‘congratulating’ Kashmiris for the low turnout. However, the
United States has declared its faith in India’s democratic record.
Unfortunately, the authorities in Jammu and Kashmir State have not
helped matter by clumsily having soldiers force voters into poll
booths. This will serve to discredit even the minimal turnout."
"Jammu voters are fed up with politicians," wrote: The Kashmir
Monitor on Wednesday September 15th: "The lowest ever
turnout in the September 11th, polling for the two
parliamentary constituencies in Jammu region have indicated that the
people in general have lost faith in the present democratic system
and are fed up with the false promises of the various political
The Kashmir Monitor on Thursday September 16th:
"Former [Indian] Home Minister and the People’s Democratic Party
Chief Mufti Mohammad Syed has alleged a nexus between the
governments at the centre [India] and the state [Kashmir] to declare
the National Conference candidate from Srinagar constituency Omer
Abdullah victorious in the just bygone Lok Sabha polls.
"Talking to reporters in Srinagar on Tuesday [September 14th]
Mufti said that the rigging which Farooq Abdullah’s government
resorted to in the Srinagar polls was even worse than the one in
1987. State Task Force and SPO’s were used in rigging the elections,
he said. Adding that the official machinery was brazenly and openly
misused by the National Conference legislators and ministers who
captured the booths and indulged in bogus polling."
"For J-K villagers, ink-mark is all that counts," wrote Muzamil
Jaeel for The Indian Express on Sunday September 19th:
"It is polling day in Pattan, Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah seems
to have kept his word uttered at an election rally here a few days
back - most of the villagers have been
forced by the army to vote or face the consequences in the evening.
"‘Since it is harvest time, I had left for the fields early in
the morning. But the army men stopped me and asked me to go to
Pattan to cast my vote. I had to walk more than four kilometres to
reach here,’ testified Mohammad Sultan Dar, 55, a farmer of Mandeyar,
a village on the outskirts of Pattan town, who was not allowed to
cast his vote - somebody had done it for
him. But he was happy with the indelible ink mark on his finger.
‘They (army men) will come in the evening to check out fingers. I am
safe now,’ he said."
Pamela Constable, a reporter with The Washington Post
wrote (October 4th, 1999): "Many Kashmiris, however, have
shown no interest in elections, insisting that the Indian government
must instead allow them a long-promised referendum on independence.
Voter turnout last month in Srinagar, where opposition groups had
called for a boycott, was less than 12 per cent. In north Kashmir,
turnout was a bit higher, but there were widespread reports of
soldiers dragging people to the polls.
"In Anantnag, a conservative farming area, many people said they
too had little confidence in the electoral process and did not
intend to vote. Most said they feared the army more than rebels, but
the steady reports of sabotage at police posts and on campaign
routes - along with thousands of extra
troops patrolling the roads - have lent a
tense and ominous mood to the final days before the election."
The Indian Express reported (Sunday October 10th):
"What do you do when you don’t want to vote but need your finger
inked so that the army jawan [soldiers] who comes checking your nail
in the evening, leaves you alone? Well, you do what a record number
of voters in the three Lok Sabha constituencies in Kashmir valley
did this time. They either left their ballots untouched or they
stamped on several symbols to render their votes invalid. And walked
out with their finger inked and ready for the ‘nail parade’ later in
"In fact, when these ballot boxes were opened, counting officers
had to not only contend with hordes of invalid votes but also with a
dozen ‘letters’ from angry voters complaining of coercion by
security forces and criticising the ‘corrupt and indifferent’
The APHC termed polling "a dramatic enactment that proved to be
an absolute fiasco" - the people of
Kashmir rejected it by abstaining from exercising their right to
Mr. Syed Ali Shah Gilani, Chairman of the APHC, while briefing
reporters condemned attempts by pro-Indian political parties and
various other agencies to confuse and mislead the population and the
international community by propagating that only the poor have
suffered during the current freedom struggle. He said that all the
segments, classes, and strata of Kashmiri society irrespective of
their caste creed and economic classes have offered sacrifices for
the freedom movement. Once again, the Kashmiri people have
demonstrated that nothing less than the right of self-determination
was acceptable to them.
Mr. Gilani thanked the people for showing solidarity with APHC’s
election boycott programme. "The poll boycott should be an
eye-opener for New Delhi and it should learn a lesson from this
experience as people have again reposed their faith in the APHC and
boycotted the poll."
He underscored that the APHC was the guardian of 60,000 people,
who laid down their lives for the motherland. "Now the people have
again proved that they will not compromise with the sacrifices of
the 60,000 martyrs. They have renewed their pledge that they will
not ally with the forces who have raped their women, killed their
dear ones and maimed their beloved." Adding that the people do not
accept the elections or selections held under the Indian
Constitution and guns.
Nevertheless, leaders of the APHC urged New Delhi to accept
democratic defeat in Kashmir. The people of Kashmir have made their
verdict heard loud and clear and that means India’s presence in the
disputed region is no longer acceptable.
Because of India’s dirty and manipulative tactics to tighten its
grip over the territory since its invasion in 1947, elections in
Kashmir have become a last resort to send a clear message to New
Delhi and the international community that the people of Kashmir
reject India’s presence in Kashmir. Since 1951 India has claimed
that by participation in elections the people of Kashmir have
exercised their right of self-determination. Although, a vast
majority of the Kashmiri people have always boycotted these
fraudulent elections, this time they wanted to make a bigger show
out of the boycott. As a result, the turnout in many areas was a
mere one per cent; five votes were cast in Sopore and none at all at
many other polling stations.
Thus the boycott was a clear vote of no confidence not only
against New Delhi, but also against those parties contesting the
election under India’s illegitimate rule.
Ignoring dire threats of violence for non-participation, the
people persisted and the Indian authority had no choice but to put
the entire leadership of the APHC behind bars in the middle of the
The boycott demonstrates just how alienated Kashmiris are from
India. The boycott has reiterated the determination of the Kashmiri
people to continue the struggle for their right of
self-determination. It has further strengthened the belief that the
liberation struggle is indigenous.
The Indian media have also confirmed that elections in Jammu and
Kashmir were farcical and meaningless. Therefore, elections held
under Indian-occupation were neither an expression of the free will
of the people of Kashmir nor a substitute to the free and impartial
plebiscite to be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.
These elections have no validity under international law.
The ongoing uprising in the Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir is
a direct result of India’s persistent refusal to allow the
implementation of the UN resolutions, which call for a
"UN-supervised free and impartial plebiscite."
Since October 1989’s massive revolt against Indian occupation,
New Delhi has adopted a liquidation approach to suppress each and
every individual voice of dissent. Impunity has become a licence for
Indian troops to wreak havoc with the lives of the Kashmiri people.
The escalation of New Delhi’s bloody repression is an attempt to
muzzle and terrorise the people of Kashmir.
During the past fifty-two years India and Pakistan have been
locked in a dead-end negotiation position, talks about talks,
exchange of non-papers and breakdown of talks. The delay in finding
a peaceful solution is causing unprecedented suffering only to the
people of Kashmir.
The movement for self-determination in Kashmir cannot be
categorised as secessionist. Nor could a parallel be drawn between
the freedom struggle in Kashmir and the separatist movements in
different parts of India. The question in Kashmir is simply that of
fulfilling a commitment made long ago by the Indian government to
the Kashmiri people as well as to the international community. The
following are some of the points that bring out the disputed nature
of Jammu and Kashmir, the distinctiveness of this issue, and its
- Kashmir has always been
recognised as a disputed territory. There are international
obligations agreed to by India and Pakistan over the future of the
- The UN Security Council
remains in a hiatus on Kashmir.
- The presence of the United
Nations Military Observers Group in India and Pakistan along the
ceasefire line as distinguished from an international border
clearly indicates the disputed nature of the Jammu and Kashmir.
It is universally known that force, however, dreadfully and
brutally applied, cannot stamp out the will and spirit of a people
struggling for their basic rights. At the most, it can suppress for
a temporary period their active struggle. But no sooner than the
grip of the occupying power is loosened somewhat that the movement
for emancipation resumes its own course and momentum in no time. By
making Kashmir a garrison area, India simply cannot hope to resolve
Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee needs to follow the
lead of the wartime leader of "Free France" Charles de Gaulle. De
Gaulle realised that war against Algerian independence was
un-winnable. In 1959 he announced his intention of allowing the
Algerians to choose between independence and continued association
with France. Despite two unsuccessful coups against De Gaulle by
some extremist army generals in 1960 and 1961, the French government
arranged a referendum in July 1962 in which Algerians voted
overwhelmingly for independence.
The world community’s approach to this long-running dispute of
Jammu and Kashmir has been, by and large, to ignore it. India and
Pakistan are now entrenched on either side of the ceasefire line.
The two countries have fought two of their three wars over Kashmir.
Moreover, the 11-year-old revolt against India’s rule in occupied
Kashmir has claimed an estimated 60,000 lives, but it has not
changed New Delhi’s stubborn approach towards finding a peaceful
solution. India, somewhat, has succeeded in its arrogances, because
of western industrialized nations’ love for its rapidly growing
Today, the Kashmir conflict is flanked with nuclear weapons. The
stalemate could trigger a nuclear war between India and Pakistan,
which will lead to more instability in the region with serious
global repercussions. The international community has a moral
obligation to impress upon India that sending more troops to Kashmir
will make the situation worse. The need of the hour is that New
Delhi honor its commitments to the Kashmiri people and respects
their wishes by allowing them to choose their future. More
particularly, the western industrialized nations must take a
leadership role in bringing an end to the conflict.