Identifying and analyzing the electoral competition in a place like Jammu and Kashmir is not as simple as it seems. It is hardly simple, but it is a lot more complicated process.
With District Development Council (DDC) elections just around the corner, the eligible voters – as far as the voting behavior1 of people of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned – can choose a candidate to vote for or choose not to vote at all, as deciding not to vote is not an uncommon stance in the erstwhile state. Furthermore, the political decision to vote or not to vote is motivated by “group affiliations” and certain “beliefs”. Also, there are plenty of valid reasons why some people don’t exercise their right to vote. Speaking of which, ask this question and the most valid answers (read reasons) – for people to decide not to vote – would be “no elected politician has helped the common people during a crisis and hard time, and they don’t feel represented”. They say that they are skeptical of promises of reform and development made by the successively elected representatives.
While those in the fray for the DDC elections are trying hard to consolidate their vote and support among the people by repeating old promises and also making fresh ones, the latter have got a lot of options to choose from. However, identifying and analyzing the electoral competition in a place like Jammu and Kashmir is not as simple as it seems. It is hardly simple, but it is a lot more complicated process.
Yes, it is complicated!
It does not happen very often, but world history is replete with instances wherein the actual choice boils down to a binary. What is still more uncomfortable and disconcerting is that when those who have to make a choice see the alternatives as a choice between a punch to the face and a punch to the gut – it hurts both ways, but it’s a choice they nonetheless have to make.
Complicating the matters further is the kind of political culture in vogue. In today’s political configuration, when someone makes a reasoned, independent argument against ‘a leader’ or her/his ‘party’, the criticism is twisted into some bizarre, far more arguable, alternate-universe premise by the members of the (leader’s or party’s) ‘faithful’. Kashmir has all along been witness to this culture. There was a time when nobody could talk, or maybe, even dare to hold a grudge against Shiekh Mohammad Abdullah. But then came his replacement in Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, who was followed by G M Sadiq; then senior Abdullah again followed by his junior. In this way, the political culture persisted which allowed the leaders to do whatever they wanted and nobody could question them (“Ye Babas Khoush Kar’e Tee Kar’e’ Lo lo”)!
The 1990s – when militancy was at its peak – furthered this culture and took it to new heights. Even now questioning those wielding the gun would mean losing life or a limb. The people who took upon themselves the role of ideological mentoring of militancy – the leadership that rose to occupy the political centre stage of separatism were far warier of any criticism directed at it. They would frame and label their critics as being anti-movement, “agents” or “agency people”. This technique would automatically turn off every criticism. The daredevils who refused to ‘bite the bullet’ would have to have it in their heads. Period.
George W. Bush may be credited by history to have glamorized the binary choice when at the launch of his anti-terrorism campaign after 9/11 he famously (rather infamously) said “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”; but this phrase “you’re either with us, or against us” has been there in Kashmir’s political culture for a long time, though it was deliberately omitted or purposefully concealed from the audible political communication.
Today, the people are once again faced with a binary choice.
Parties cutting across the political divide in Jammu and Kashmir are trying to convince the people that the upcoming elections are not a referendum on the abrogation of J&K’s special status and related decisions. However, in politics, nobody wants to be caught in a corner with no escape route. This is why two major contenders – the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the People’s Alliance for Gupkar Declaration (PAGD) are not linking these elections with their respective stances concerning the decisions on abrogation of J&K’s special status. But should BJP win, it will for sure market it as people’s endorsement of its decision to abrogate Article 370, 35-A and hordes of other decisions concerning the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir in the past more than a year. The same holds true for the PAGD. If their candidates win, the amalgam will waste no time in claiming the results as being a popular rejection of the Centre’s decisions and its demand for restoration of J&K’s special status will definitely get some badly wanted traction within India and elsewhere.
On a broader note, nothing seems to have changed for the general public. Like always, the common people continue to remain caught in a binary choice, the only difference being this time is that the choice is far more pronounced even when everybody is deliberately trying to play it down knowing it well that they will take it to high decibels should the election results favour them.
70 years on, the development in Jammu and Kashmir is still at an early stage, and it is hoped that the newly formed Union Territory will witness an uptick in development activities and implementation of welfare schemes with the efforts of those who are declared as the winners of the DDC elections.
1Voting behavior pertains to the actions or inactions of citizens in respect of participating in the elections.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of JKPI
Leave a Reply
You must belogged in to post a comment.