As the assembly and parliamentary elections draw near in Indian administered Kashmir casual discussions inside many households and heated debates on the shop railings amongst passionate young and old Kashmiris are gaining momentum. It is time for people to weigh the pros and cons of boycotting the elections by adhering to politics religiously followed by one section of the resistance camp. They are also applying their own measuring rod to determine the merits and demerits of the pro-election politics of the pro-India camp.

No doubt, some sections of the Kashmiri society are looking at participation in the elections only through the prism of local governance, routine administration and day-to-day affairs. There is also a group of the educated middle-class that is of the view that issues like development, healthcare, education, etc should be declared ‘conflict-neutral’ by both the camps — the resistance as well as the pro-India.

The yardstick applied by other sections concludes that being part of any election process under the Indian constitution is “plain betrayal” to the cause of an independent Kashmir. This section of people constantly reminds others of the sacrifices offered by the Kashmiris — especially the youth — for the ongoing ‘movement for freedom, liberty, justice, equality, dignity and peace.’

‘Bijli, Sarak and Pani’

There are a few who raise concerns about the lack of basic facilities in the rural and remote parts of the Kashmir Valley. Sometimes arguments like ‘urban-rural divide’ are made to bring home the point. Whether or not an ‘urban-rural divide’ exists in relation to the collective political aspiration for freedom, the fact of the matter is that people from Handwara and Kupwara aspire for ‘Azadi’ as much as the people in Srinagar or Shopian do. However, there is little doubt that the facilities are lacking in the remote parts of Kashmir than in Srinagar city or major towns.

The counter-argument is that people indeed want ‘bijli, sarak and pani’ (electricity, roads and water) but that in no way suggests they have given up their demand for freedom. People paying taxes to any government — oppressive or people-friendly, legitimate or illegitimate, cruel and vindictive or kind and popular — have the right to access to clean drinking water, uninterrupted power supply, macadamised roads, quality healthcare, modern education and sustainable development.

What is so horribly wrong about it?

Have the Intellectuals Failed People?

Let us face a simple fact: The intellectuals of Kashmir have failed in providing convincing answers to this burning question of ‘to vote or not to vote’. Whether the participation in the election process amounts to ‘betrayal’ or it remains a ‘normal democratic exercise’ for routine administration for redress of day-to-day grievances is a valid question which should be debated threadbare. There should be some convincing answers without confusing people with loaded jargon.

The fact remains that despite massive participation of people in pro-freedom rallies, there is also massive voter turnout during J&K assembly and Indian parliamentary elections. These are two contrasting realities which no one can deny.

Barring the elections in 1977, 2002 and 2008, all previous elections in Indian-administered Kashmir have mostly witnessed mass-scale rigging. This remains a well-documented fact. Even Indian politicians, intellectuals and historians agree to this. The exercise of elections has been a total farce in the 1990s. The Indian military, army and paramilitary forces literally dragged people to the polling booths and coerced them to exercise their adult franchise, which is obviously a travesty of democracy. Elections of 1996 were perhaps the last nail in the coffin for Indian democracy in Kashmir.

India obviously sells the idea of massive participation in Kashmir election to ramp up its democratic credentials and also a ‘referendum’ to rationalise its control in the region. The regional pro-India forces talk about these as a vote for ‘bijli, sarak and pani’. The resistance camp calls for a total boycott but there is little or no effect of this on the ground.

The resistance leadership obviously has to think beyond the customary press release which calls for a boycott. It is important to mention that a boycott call hasn't worked in the past and is unlikely to do so in the future.

All pro-India MLAs and MPs have access to local people and enjoy freedom to hold their rallies in a controlled environment. And in the spirit of free speech and free movement, the resistance leadership should also be allowed to go before the people with its viewpoint.

Some important questions:

The question which should be posed to the so-called mainstream (pro-India) politicians is this: Even after ruling Kashmiris for the past six decades all you can promise is roads, water and electricity. Isn’t this in itself an acknowledgment of the fact that even this isn’t your mandate, because you have consistently failed to deliver? Their pep talk on zero tolerance on human rights abuses, removal of draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), demilitarisation and moving towards a political solution to the Kashmir dispute sounds like a flop 3D horror movie anyway!

On the other hand, the resistance leaders keep repeating their election boycott call, arguing that the pro-India political forces in Kashmir are ‘collaborators of Indian occupation’ and therefore inflicting oppression on Kashmiris.

They appeal for non-participation saying those who will cast votes in the elections would be betraying martyrs who sacrificed their lives for Kashmir’s freedom. Despite such strong appeals people come out in large numbers to vote. The question that the pro-freedom camp must answer is: why? Why give the boycott call when you already know what the outcome is going to be? Why give India a chance to sell election participation in the manner that it wishes to? And finally, why not think beyond a failed political strategy?

If the voter turn-out is no referendum to India’s rule in Kashmir (which it isn’t), the simple question is why do people vote then? Because the participation in elections suggests that people who vote believe in democracy as a process to address day-to-day grievances and issues of local governance.

Similarly, how is massive participation of people in pro-freedom rallies a referendum for Kashmir’s ‘Azadi’? It definitely is. People’s participation in huge rallies telegraphs their collective political aspiration for freedom. The half-a-million-strong ‘Azadi’ rallies are a stamp of attention so that the world listens to what Kashmiris aspire for. People participate in ‘Azadi’ rallies knowing well that they could face the music of bullets. Despite that they scream ‘Hum Kya Chahate, Azadi’ [We Want Freedom] to assert their political goal.

Whether this is hypocrisy, political maturity, greed or a necessary evil to ensure survival remains a valid question.