In the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir(J&K), where military presence often overshadows democratic processes, assembly elections are set to begin on September 18, with final results expected on October 4, 2024. Concerns over the fairness and transparency of these elections persist, as the interests of the local population have historically clashed with the objectives of the occupying administration. The region’s elections are frequently seen as more a reflection of military control than a true expression of the people’s will.
Within the larger framework of Indian democracy, elections in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir often resemble a dramatic performance akin to those seen in authoritarian regimes. This electoral process, while outwardly presenting an image of democratic participation, is steeped in irony. It masks a deeper reality where genuine freedom is compromised by pervasive militarization and tight control. Beneath the surface of supposed democratic engagement lies a complex paradox: the region’s political facade of choice and representation starkly contrasts with the underlying suppression and dominance that define its actual experience.
The situation in Jammu and Kashmir illustrates not the embrace of liberty, but rather the intentional distortion of political reality. While the ongoing elections might be presented as a symbol of democratic revival and an opportunity for the region to reclaim its political voice, the reality on the ground paints a different picture. For many residents of J&K, these elections hold minimal significance beyond that of routine local municipal polls. The pervasive atmosphere of militarization and control casts a shadow over the electoral process, reducing it to a symbolic exercise rather than a genuine expression of democratic will. In this context, the semblance of electoral participation does little to alter the fundamental dynamics of power and control that continue to shape the daily lives of the people in J&K. The elections, thus, are seen less as a milestone in the restoration of democratic principles and more as a stage-managed event with limited impact on the entrenched realities of the region.
The revocation of Article 370, which previously afforded IIOJ&K(Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir) a measure of autonomy, has replaced regional self-governance with direct centralized control, leading to a profound sense of disenfranchisement and loss among its residents. This shift has entrenched widespread distrust toward the Indian government, further deepening the divide between the region and the central authorities. The ongoing elections will determine the occupants of 90 Assembly seats in IIOJ&K, yet the authority vested in these representatives will be severely limited. Crucial areas such as law, order, and land management will remain under the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant Governor, rendering the restoration of full statehood a distant prospect. Both voters and local leaders harbor doubts about the elections’ real significance in the absence of restored statehood.
Political analysts, including Kanwal Singh and Anuradha Bhasin, argue that competing for such restricted powers mirrors the situation of regional dynasties contending over what amounts to a municipal council rather than a genuine legislative body. The elections, therefore, are seen as a shadow of their potential, with the central government’s control continuing to overshadow any meaningful local governance.
However, the recent deployment of an additional 300 military companies to the already heavily fortified IIOJ&K raises significant concerns about the credibility of the democratic process. With a staggering voter-to-security personnel ratio of 10:1, the elections appear more like a military operation than a genuine democratic exercise. This excessive militarization has sparked fears that in areas where the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) faces resistance, democracy is essentially being enforced at gunpoint, undermining the very essence of democratic engagement and raising questions about the fairness of the electoral process.
Despite pervasive skepticism and distrust, many Kashmiris fear that boycotting the elections could lead to negative repercussions. For them, participating in the vote is not necessarily an endorsement of the current system but rather a strategic move to retain some level of influence. Even with limited authority, local representatives can still push for better services, safeguard cultural heritage, and advocate for community-beneficial policies. While the Assembly’s powers are restricted, having a voice, however modest, is seen as more advantageous than remaining completely silent.
The BJP’s victory in the Lok Sabha seat from Rajouri has been marred by allegations of rigging and strategic electoral manipulation. The party’s success was facilitated by the controversial redrawing of constituency boundaries, specifically merging Kalakote ex-Rajouri with Anantnag. This realignment increased the number of seats in predominantly Hindu-majority areas, giving the BJP an undue advantage by creating a disproportionate representation, disregarding population ratios. Despite pleas for additional seats in areas like Samba and Kathua, the focus was placed on Rajouri and Poonch. In Jakhani village, located near the Line of Control but inconveniently aligned with Ramnagar instead of Chennai, voters did not support the BJP, highlighting attempts to boost pro-BJP voter density. Additionally, the creation of the Thanamandi constituency effectively severed Muslim representation from Rajouri, transforming it into a Hindu-majority constituency, despite Hindus constituting only 28% of the population. Similarly, the Muslim-majority Kalakote, with 51% Muslims, was rendered a minority by integrating it with Sunderbani, which is 86% Hindu.
The Indian government appears more focused on controlling territory than addressing the needs of its people, as the essence of democracy is supposed to be the rule of the people. This disconnect is evident as voters who opposed the BJP in the Lok Sabha elections are expected to cast their ballots against the party once again. The BJP’s unpopularity is underscored by the fact that no other political party is willing to ally with them for the assembly elections, reflecting a widespread rejection of their political agenda.
Moreover, the issuance of Kashmiri domiciles to Hindu extremists is seen as undermining social harmony and further exacerbating tensions in the region. The BJP’s tactics of political manipulation are evident in their denial of voting rights through arrests and harassment of political opponents using state machinery. There are also fears that the BJP may incite unrest in areas where they are likely to lose, potentially orchestrating state-managed disruptions as a means of evading elections and protecting their image. The extensive use of state resources to rig elections, including attempts to skew Muslim representation and install a Hindu Chief Minister, highlights the extreme measures being taken. Additionally, significant reshuffling within the IIOJK police force prior to the assembly elections is perceived as a strategy to benefit the BJP, further illustrating the party’s determination to manipulate electoral outcomes.
Peace in IIOJ&K cannot be achieved through superficial democratic processes alone. The Indian government must address the fundamental demands of the Kashmiri people, including self-determination, autonomy, and justice. Without substantial engagement on these critical issues, elections in IIOJ&K will continue to be seen as mere political theatrics, masking unresolved tensions. Despite appearing democratic, these elections occur in a context marked by heavy militarization, widespread distrust, and centralized control. As long as core issues of autonomy and justice remain unaddressed, elections will only highlight the facade of democracy, overshadowed by the omnipresent force. Pakistan views these elections as a “sham,” asserting that they do not reflect the genuine will of the Kashmiri people and calls for an internationally supervised plebiscite to determine the region’s future, in line with UN Security Council resolutions.