NEW DELHI: A key group that represents a segment of Kashmiri opinion critical of the Indian state, the All-Party Hurriyat Conference, this week made the dramatic announcement that it will hold a “people’s election” in both the Indian and Pakistani parts of Jammu and Kashmir. This will be conducted by an independent “election commission”, the group said on Tuesday.
The commission, the 23-party Hurriyat conglomerate says, will comprise six non-government members, four Indians and two Pakistanis. Its co-chairs will be an Indian civil rights activist, Tapan Bose, and former Pakistan Supreme Court chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah.
The idea of holding a “people’s” election is certainly novel. The move indicates both a softening on the part of the Hurriyat, and pressure to show that it has some popular following in the Kashmir Valley.
This pressure is related to Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s Jan 12 address condemning all violence, even in the cause of Kashmir’s freedom, and his later declaration that Pakistan will “morally” support only groups with indigenous roots.
The stated objective of the independent “election” is to determine who really represents the people of Jammu and Kashmir — fairly and “impartially”. Implicit here is the view that a free and fair election cannot be conducted under the auspices of the Indian government. “Official” elections to the legislature are due by September.
Another Hurriyat aim is to disprove New Delhi’s contention that the militancy or “people’s movement” in Kashmir is largely Pakistan-sponsored. On Feb 12, Hurriyat spokesman Abdul Gani Butt said that following the election, the organization would join India and Pakistan at the “negotiating table” to decide the fate of Kashmir.
Hurriyat has said it will hold the election in three phases in the predominantly Muslim Kashmir Valley, in the largely Hindu Jammu region, in the Buddhist-dominated cold desert of Ladakh, and in Azad Kashmir. No timeframe has been specified.
The Hurriyat’s “election” proposal is sure to polarise opinion three ways. One current will reject it outright as an effort to illegitimately smuggle in a plebiscite through the back door. The anti-plebiscite view is likely to find support among India’s conservative politicians, who will instead insist on “normal” state-controlled elections.
A second trend of opinion would broadly support the Hurriyat plan to expose the Indian government and its “lack of respect” for Kashmiri public opinion. A third trend would welcome Hurriyat’s desire to participate in electoral politics.
But it would ask the Hurriyat to take part in the “official” assembly elections, which should be monitored by independent observers, especially from South Asia. The election proposal could well open a dialogue with the Indian government and with civil society groups. This will be welcome.—Dawn/InterPress Service.