Voicing out through votes

The recently concluded elections in India-administered Kashmir saw a record turnout as the valley’s residents seized the opportunity to finally speak up, even if just through the ballot.

And while several pressing issues have been top of mind among Kashmiris for years – such as unemployment, the rising cost of living, and imprisonment of local youth in jails – their foremost objective for casting their votes in the legislative assembly election that ended on Oct. 1 was the ouster of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from Kashmir.

“We want BJP to stay out of power,” said Mohammad Adnan, a resident of South Kashmir’s Pulwama district as the poll was ongoing. “This is one of the important reasons why people in large numbers are participating in these elections.”

Abdul Hamid Mir, a resident of South Kashmir’s Anantnag district, meanwhile, described his vote as a protest against what he termed as the “enforced silence” imposed by the central government in Kashmir.

“Development is not our election issue,” said the 52-year-old Mir, who voted in a legislative assembly election for the first time last Sept. 18. “Development is sought by people where there are basic human rights, proper democracy, and peace. Here, we can’t even raise our voices for basic human needs because we have been completely intimidated by the administration.”

Kashmir lies at the center of a conflict between India and Pakistan. The nuclear arch-rivals both claim the region in full, but each controls only parts of it. The portion of Kashmir under Indian control has faced years of political turmoil, with an insurgency against Indian governance resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands – and still counting – of militants, Indian soldiers, and civilians. 

Elections in Kashmir have historically been viewed by residents and separatist leaders as a tool used by New Delhi to legitimize its control over the region. With calls for boycott and violence marring elections, turnouts have often been low in many past polls.

Yet similar to the recently held parliamentary elections, which had a 58.46-percent voter turnout in Kashmir, a sizable chunk of the valley’s more than 8.7 million eligible voters cast their ballots in an election that would determine who would occupy the 90 assembly seats. In fact, reports say that voter turnout for the legislative assembly polls surpassed that for the parliamentary elections.

A 10-year wait

The first two phases of Kashmir’s latest election were held on Sept. 18 and 25, while the third and last phase took place on  Oct. 1. Official counting of the ballots is scheduled for Oct. 8.

Kashmir’s legislative assembly election this year is important for two key reasons. First, it is being held nearly a decade after the last one was held in 2014. Second, it marks the first assembly election there since the region’s semi-autonomous status was revoked five years ago.

In August 2019, the central government led by Hindu nationalist BJP abolished the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcated the region into two federal Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. 

To prevent any unrest, the administration shut down communication for months, deployed tens of thousands of additional troops, and arrested thousands of people, including separatist leaders, human rights activists, mainstream politicians, and civilians. The central government has since maintained a tight grip on the region. In a press release dated  Sept. 18, Amnesty International expressed concern over the ongoing suppression of dissent in Jammu and Kashmir. 

“The Indian authorities are employing arbitrary restrictions and punitive measures to foster a climate of fear in Jammu and Kashmir,” said Aakar Patel, chairperson of the board at Amnesty International India. “Anyone who dares to speak out — whether to criticize the government or advocate for human rights — faces a crackdown on their rights to free expression and association, and they are restricted from moving freely both within and outside the country.”

Indeed, Asia Democracy Chronicles (ADC) found many Kashmiris reluctant to talk to the media due to fear of being targeted by security agencies. Explained Shabir Ahmad, a voter from South Kashmir’s Kulgam district: “You never know what might happen to you if you criticize the BJP government and its policies in Kashmir.”

And yet that was apparently why he showed up to cast his vote in the recent elections. “There is an urgent need to create an atmosphere where we can at least talk about our problems,” said Ahmad. “This election allows us to elect a representative who will listen to our concerns.”

Proxies and conspiracy theories

At the same time, though, a rise in independent contenders had led to questions about which candidates were genuine and which may be proxies. The Kashmir assembly elections witnessed a surge in participation from lesser-known parties and independent candidates, with the latter making up 44 percent of those vying for a seat. 

This has been perceived as supporting the widespread belief that the BJP is playing a covert game in the region. As sociopolitical activist and All Parties Sikh Coordination Committee (APSCC) chairman Jagmohan Singh Raina put it, “In the past, Kashmir has often seen a chief minister installed through conspiracies in Delhi. It’s no different this time.”

The participation of some separatist leaders, who have historically boycotted electoral processes but are now contesting in several constituencies for the first time in decades, also raised eyebrows. 

At least 10 former members of the outlawed Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI), for example, ran as independent candidates in the election, even as they aligned with the Awami Itehad Party (AIP) of controversial political figure Sheikh Abdul Rashid, who is currently serving a five-year jail term for terrorism. 

This new political alliance that involves a previously banned organization has raised concerns about the changing dynamics in the region’s political landscape. A sociopolitical and religious organization that has been a significant force in the region, JeI Kashmir has been at the center of controversy for decades. 

It has been banned multiple times — first in 1975, again in 1990, and most recently in March 2019, when the Indian government cracked down on its activities. Since the latest ban, over 300 leaders and activists have been arrested, their properties seized, and homes raided, underscoring the contentious nature of the organization’s involvement in Kashmir’s politics.

Speaking on the organization’s new political strategy, JeI-backed candidate Sayar Mir asserted, “We were always ready to fight elections democratically. However, elections were not fair in Kashmir. As the recent parliamentary elections were fair, we decided to fight in this one.” 

But many remained unconvinced. National Conference (NC) party leader Omar Abdullah, for one, believed New Delhi was interfering in the regional electoral process through proxies. 

Speaking at a rally in Central Kashmir, Abdullah pointed to candidates like separatist leader Sarjan Barkati, suggesting that their nomination was part of a broader effort by the central government to influence the outcome of the elections. Barkati is currently in jail on terrorism charges. Although he is from South Kashmir, he ran against Abdullah in Central Kashmir’s Budgam District.

 A favored prisoner?

Questions have been raised as well over the granting of temporary bail last Sept. 11 to Rashid, just so he could campaign for AIP. Rashid recently won a parliamentary seat, defeating NC’s Abdullah. Unsurprisingly, Abdullah – a former Chief Minister – was among the Jammu and Kashmir politicians who voiced their concerns over what they said was preferential treatment toward Rashid. 

During a series of public meetings in Budgam district in Central Kashmir, Abdullah questioned why Rashid was released on bail while others remained imprisoned under similar charges. He said Rashid’s temporary release was intended to divide Kashmiri voices and strengthen BJP’s position. 

Mehbooba Mufti, another former Chief Minister and leader of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), accused the BJP of backing Rashid’s AIP to destabilize larger regional parties. Mufti herself has not been contesting elections, saying she will not do so until Kashmir’s statehood is restored. 

Rashid, for his part, has repeatedly maintained that he has no affiliation with the BJP. Instead, he portrayed himself as a staunch opponent of the administration of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and its policies toward Kashmir.

Interestingly, the proxy theory seems to have helped drive more voters into the polling booths. Said Adnan, the Pulwama district resident: “BJP is playing dirty politics to get in power by fielding proxy candidates. We will not let them succeed.” Still, like many other Kashmiris, Adnan was pessimistic over the prospects of an elected government in Kashmir effecting real change. 

“This election is a joke,” he said, sounding rather defeated. “The elected government will have very little power and will be dependent on the LG (Lieutenant Governor), who is aligned with the BJP. We have no hope from this election.”

Socio-political activist Sanjay Tickoo shared his view, pointing out the restrictions on legislative authority. Echoing Adnan, he said, “The elected government will be without any real power. Even if a resolution is passed, it must go through the Lieutenant Governor. ” 

Last July 12, the Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, an appointee of the central government, was granted absolute control over state governance, including local administrative officials, prisons, prosecutions, and law offices. 

Noted Amnesty International in its Sept. 18 press release on the region: “The increase of the powers of the LG enhances the control of the union government over the region, concentrating power in the hands of the LG and significantly limiting the autonomy traditionally exercised by the local government. This shift not only reduces the role of the Chief Minister and the elected legislature but also marginalizes their influence over critical administrative and legal decisions, thereby diminishing the power of local governance.” ◉