THE REALITY OF ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS IN IIOJK AMID HEAVY MILITARY DEPLOYMENT

Ahead of general assembly elections, major military operations in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) generate serious questions regarding the actual motivations of the Indian government, under direction of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Not only is this militarization of a territory already laden with decades of violence, breaches of human rights and political upheaval an attempt to guarantee security but also a calculated action meant to change the political discourse in favor of the governing party. The action of the Indian government raised serious questions regarding the conduct of free and fair elections in the area and emphasizes the larger objective of repression, control and political gain that has defined New Delhi’s approach towards IIOJK.

Background of the Conflict

Following the division of British India, IIOJK has become key in a geopolitical confrontation between India and Pakistan since 1947. With people of Kashmir always advocating for self-determination and autonomy, the area has seen multiple wars, insurgencies and many cases of civil upheaval throughout the years. Modi government made a major step in August 2019 by abrogating Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which gave Jammu and Kashmir a special status. Widespread reaction was seen against this inhuman and unconstitutional action, which was followed by a communication blackout, mass detentions and military presence in the area rising.

With Article 370 abrogated, the Indian government has methodically tried to change the political and demographic discourse in IIOJK. This approaching general assembly elections in IIOJK and the military force deployment is a continuation of New Delhi’s approach to stifle dissent, threaten voters and guarantee that the political process stays under its control.

Undermining Democracy

Particularly in a contested and strongly militarized area like IIOJK, the deployment of heavy military personnel ahead of elections compromises the basic foundations of democracy. Any democratic system is based on free and fair elections, which demand an atmosphere where people may exercise their right to vote without any fear, intimidation or threat. However, the huge military presence in IIOJK generates an environment of anxiety that makes it almost hard for the people to engage in the democratic process free from threat.

Given the unstable state of the area, the Indian government argues that the military presence is required to uphold law and order. Comprising hundreds of thousands of Indian troops, IIOJK has been among the most militarized areas in the globe since the 1990s. Instead of bringing peace or stability to the area, this huge military presence has resulted in innumerable violations of human rights including extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, torture and sexual violence.

The choice to send more troops before the general assembly elections in IIOJK implies that the Indian government is more focused on influencing the result of the elections than on guaranteeing the voter safety. The inhabitants of Kashmir are constantly reminded of their occupation by military soldiers present at polling stations, on streets and in public areas; their ballots might not really count in deciding the course of the area.

The Actual Goal is Political Gain and Suppressing of Dissent.

The military deployment is mostly driven by the suppression of any kind of opposition that can challenge the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the next elections. Long striving to unite its authority in Jammu and Kashmir, the Modi government offers chances for the BJP to build political supremacy in the area through the elections. Through military deployment, the government can threaten opposition parties, rig the vote process and stifle any pro-independence or anti-BJP sentiment among the population.

The BJP has actively pushed a Hindutva ideology in recent years, aimed at marginalizing religious and ethnic minorities especially Muslims. Given its preponderance of Muslims, IIOJK has been a focus of this ideology. Part of a bigger attempt to weaken the region’s Muslim-majority identity and make it more in line with the BJP’s vision of a Hindu-majority India, Article 370 was abrogated and Jammu and Kashmir was subsequently divided into two union territories.

Using military forces before the elections marks the continuation of this objective. It enables the government to guarantee that any resistance to the policies of the BJP is essentially muffled and control over the political process is achieved. Targeting the majority of Muslims in Kashmir and aiming to subvert their political rights, this heavy-handed approach is not only undemocratic but also quite discriminating.

Erosion of Electoral Institution Trust

Furthermore, posing major questions regarding the legitimacy of the electoral process is the huge military presence in IIOJK. Any democratic system depends on the neutrality of electoral institutions if it is to guarantee transparent, fair and free elections. But militarization of Kashmir has undermined faith in these establishments there. Armed soldiers at voting places and continuous voter monitoring create an atmosphere whereby the voters cannot freely convey their political choices.

The reason behind losing faith in the present system is the past of electoral fraud in Kashmir. Allegations of rigging, voter intimidation and state-sponsored violence have dogged past IIOJK elections. Particularly the 1987 state elections are generally considered as a turning moment in the political history of the area since the Indian government was allegedly manipulating them to stop the emergence of pro-independence political movements.

Given this background, the deployment of armed personnel before of the present elections raises judicious questions regarding the possible attempt of the Indian government to once more control the outcome in its advantage. This compromises not just the legitimacy of the elections but also drives the danger of upsetting the area even more. According to Kashmir media services report, the Hurriyat leadership has termed the upcoming assembly elections as mere a military exercise aimed at misleading the international community.

International Community Response

The world community has not gone blind to the acts of the Indian government in IIOJK. Human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have denounced the militarization of the area and demanded a stop to the violations of human rights being carried out by Indian security personnel. Particularly in view of the abrogation of Article 370 and the consequent persecution of civil liberties, the United Nations has also voiced concern over the state of Kashmir.

Using armed forces before the elections compromises India’s reputation internationally much more. Being the so called biggest democracy in the world, India is supposed to respect democratic values including the right to fair and free elections. But the way the Modi government acts in Kashmir points to its more concentration in strengthening its authority than in maintaining democratic values.

India owes the world community accountability for its activities in IIOJK. Not just internal issues, the militarization of the area and the repression of political dissent affect regional stability and world peace more generally. With Kashmir still under occupation and the Indian government trying to control the political process, both of which are nuclear-armed nations run the danger of raising already high levels of conflict between India and Pakistan.

Conclusion

Clear evidence of the Indian government’s aim to dominate the political process in IIOJK is the deployment of heavy military personnel in IIOJK ahead of the assembly elections. Far from guaranteeing free and fair elections, this militarization aims to scare the voters, quell opposition and control the result thereby benefiting the ruling party. Seeking to isolate the majority of Muslims in Kashmir and thereby compromise their political rights, the acts of the Modi government in the area are not just undemocratic but also quite repressive. The world community must unite against this obvious misuse of authority and insist that India preserve its democratic values in IIOJK. The inhabitants of IIOJK have the right to vote free and fairly without any intimidation or violence. The dream of peace and justice in IIOJK will stay elusive till this is realized.