Author: Tukoji R. Pandit
Publication: The Free Press Journal
Date: October 4, 2002
URL: http://www.samachar.com/features/041002-features.html
The Assembly polls in Jammu and
Kashmir deserve an unqualified praise for the people of the state, the
Election Commission and the var-ious security and military forces that
super-vised the elections. The country has every reason to show its utter
contempt for the wild accusations about the Kashmir elections being a "sham"
levelled by the likes of Pakistan's Gen Parvez Musharraf, a dictator who
surely invites ridicule when he questions India's democratic credentials.
There are other self-appointed custodians
of freedom in the world who talk of democracy but love dictators. But their
hypocritical face has long been exposed- only they don't see it. Let the
practitioners of double-speak and blackmail continue to float fanciful
theories about elections in the strife-torn Kashmir state being unfair.
There can be no doubt that what
has stung the carping moaners in Islamabad and other places is the larger
than expected overall turnout of voters in Kashmir. The bulk of the Kashmiri
voters took considerable risk in coming to the polling booths to exercise
their franchise even as the Pakistani terrorists and their hirelings stepped
up their blood bath in the state to frustrate polling.
It has been alleged that security
forces were guilty of "coercion" in "forcing" people to go to polling booths.
This is described as an unfair practice. May be it is in the eyes of some.
But those in India who have seen malpractices at polling booths would know
that the real thing is to force people to vote for a particular candidate
or, worse, not allow a person to vote for the candidate of his or her choice.
It is not clear how the security
forces can be held guilty of coercion if they were to merely escort a frightened
voter to go to the booth. Moreover, even those who had pointed an accusing
finger at the security forces had not seen any such incident but only `heard
about it from their "sources" or the so-called "eye witnesses".
A low turnout in some Assembly segments
was the only "consolation" for Pakistan, which it expectedly touted as
its major prize. But the pathetic, if not sickening, attempts made by Pakistan
to pass it off as the failure of the entire polling exercise carries no
conviction even in the capitals that matter to Islamabad.
Except Pakistanis, everybody knows
why very few voters turned out in a few Kashmiri constituencies. For once,
one has to agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, L.K.Advani, that no Indian
leader can emulate Musharraf in guaranteeing over 90 percent turnout at
polls. In India and every other country, beginning with the US, where elections
are regular features, a low turnout is not viewed as an aberration.
Considering the peculiar or "abnormal"
circumstances in which polls were held in Kashmir, the low turnout in some
constituencies or their segments may be nothing more than a matter of small
concern as the more pressing need of the troubled- state remains restoration
of peace and normalcy.
The Kashmiris who braved bullets
to come to the ballot have clearly no faith in the kind of violence and
hatred preached by the Pakistan-trained and aided terrorists. Even those
who remained a little sceptical about the Kashmir polls grudgingly accepted
that much. Indeed, the voters' response in Kashmir has established that
the people of the state have more faith in the ballot than the bullet.
More than a decade of Pakistan-induced
insurgency in Kashmir in which 70,000 or more peo-ple have lost their lives
has brought nothing but misery to the people of a state, once known as
the paradise on earth and the destination of nearly a million tourists.
Likewise, calls for poll boycott from pro-Pakistani outfits have done no
good to the people but added to their pessimism and cynicism-and poverty.
As a perceptive observer remarked, `basically what all Kashmiris want is
to improve their lot and end their long spell of misery-not Pakistan-made
guns and grenades'.
On surface, Pakistan may have succeeded
in sustaining the religion-based anti- Indian sentiments of a section of
Kashmiris over the years. But it has come at the cost of an unbelievable
"ethnic cleansing" in the Kashmir valley; something that could have been
inspired only by fanatics in Pakistan and cannot be said to have strengthened
the case for "Kashmiriyat". If anything it has wiped out the separatists
case for waging a "war" against India for the sake of maintaining "Kashmiriyat"
or "Azadi" or whatever.
Post-election it must be the first
priority of the regime in Jammu and Kashmir as well as the Centre to cash
in on the faith reposed by Kashmiris in democracy through the process of
elections. Resuming the process of dialogue with a cross section of Kashmiris
is, of course, one way.
But the past practice of putting
most of the effort in bringing the Hurriyat leadership to the table does
not seem to have led anywhere. The cracks in Hurriyat leadership may have
become wider but the overall influence of Pakistan on its leadership remains
distinct.
It is not without some significance
that this time round the Hurriyat leadership was a little shy of giving
its usual poll boycott call. In fact, the Hurriyat even put up some "proxy"
candidates in the just concluded polls. Was it a sneaking admiration for
the ballot?
The Hurriyat itself needs to do
some introspection if it accepts that the 2002 Assembly polls in Kashmir
have demonstrated that their hold over the people is considerably weaker
than they have been projecting. The National Conference politicians from
Farooq Abdullah downwards have already been declaring that the Hurriyat
is nothing but a political instrument of an enemy.
The Hurriyat leadership has nothing
to prove its claim that it represents the ordinary Kashmiris; yet whenever
the Centre wants talks to be resumed, the Hurriyat leadership runs to the
Pakistan High Commission in Delhi for consultation and follows it up with
a demand for inclusion of Pakistani representatives.
The Hurriyat leadership's love for
Pakistan is welcome; at least Pakistan has one steady friend in India.
But does the Hurriyat advocate the Pakistani type of "democracy" and "Azadi"?
Does the Hurriyat want Kashmir to become an extension of the Pakistan-occupied
Kashmir, which is controlled by a Joint Secretary in Islamabad? POK, ironically
called "Azad Kashmir" in Pakistan, has become a Punjabi colony and democracy
and elections are even lesser known there than in Pakistan.
In the rest of the country those
who are in the habit of seeing the Hurriyat as larger than what it really
is also need to do some rethinking. In recent months, most efforts by the
Centre to engage the Hurriyat in serious dialogues have met with no success
because of the shenanigans of some of the top Hurriyat leaders. It is remarkable
that though these leaders claim to represent the local people they talk
the language that is heard in Pakistan.
Thus, they are quick to denounce
elections in Kashmir as "sham" while the people they allegedly represent
head for the polling booths, defying them as well as the constant threats
of death from terrorists, and shelling from across the border.
There are elements within the Kashmiri
political spectrum that stand for the state's inseparable ties with India.
But they feel weakened when successive governments at the Centre dilly-dally
with the demand for giving more autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir. This is
a matter that should now be addressed in all seriousness and urgency if
the disenchantment shown by the Kashmiris with Pakistan-backed militancy
has to be turned decisively and permanently to India's advantage.
Nearly every political party speaks
in favour of giving more powers to the states; yet it does nothing when
it is in a position to do that. It could well be that the amount of autonomy
that Kashmir seeks may be larger than what a government in New Delhi would
willingly grant. But not to consider that will not help restore normalcy
in Kashmir. Time has come to make a hard decision on not just Kashmir's
demand for autonomy but the entire gamut of Centre-State rela-tionship.
The Delhi durbar will also do well
to give precedence to the newly elected representatives in any dialogue
on Kashmir's plans and planks for a better future.
