Asia Times: Hurriyat's 'people's election' more novel than practical


	February 15, 2002	atimes.com

India/Pakistan

Hurriyat's 'people's election' more novel than practical
By Praful Bidwai

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. But how practical it is, and how much moral and political legitimacy it can command, is another issue. The announcement has already been opposed by the National Conference that rules in the Indian part of Jammu and Kashmir. And the Indian government has declared it "unconstitutional" and unviable. Others are critical too. "The trouble with Hurriyat's Commission is that some of its members are simply unknown in Kashmir. They may not command much respect," says Sonia Jabbar, a writer and analyst who has been researching the possibilities for reconciliation in Kashmir.

Nevertheless, 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 January 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 Jammu and Kashmir 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 Tuesday, Hurriyat spokesman Abdul Gani Butt said that after the election, the organization would join India and Pakistan at the "negotiating table" to decide the fate of the "disputed" territory of Jammu and Kashmir. (New Delhi rejects this description.) 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 "Pakistan-occupied" or "Azad" (Free) Kashmir. No time frame has been specified.

Meanwhile, the Indian government is going ahead with its preparations for elections to the Jammu and Kashmir assembly. India has also taken an unsteady diplomatic-political initiative for dialogue and reconciliation with the Hurriyat and others. In the past two years, India twice reached a ceasefire agreement with Hizbul Mujahideen, the largest indigenous militant group that has been fighting for independence from New Delhi since 1989. The ceasefire did not hold for long. Since the December 13 attack on India's parliament, which New Delhi blames on Pakistani-supported groups, Hizbul Mujahideen has come under increasing pressure from India and Pakistan.

New Delhi's current initiative seeks to draw the Hurriyat into the electoral process. The Hurriyat has never contested an election, but claims to be the "authentic representative" of the people. The Hurriyat is not homogeneous in its ideology or organizational links with militant groups. Most of its leaders advocate azadi - a word that connotes anything from autonomy within the Indian Union to sovereign independence, but whose meaning has never been defined on the ground. A minority of Hurriyat leaders wants Kashmir's merger with Pakistan.

Some Hurriyat constituents profess secular pluralism. A majority are Islamist. But only a few advocate Islam of the militant variety. (Kashmiri Islam is highly syncretic, with strong Buddhist and Hindu influences. It is derived from the sufi or mystic-romantic tradition.)

The Hurriyat's "election" proposal is sure to polarize opinion three ways. One current will reject it outright as an effort to illegitimately smuggle in a plebiscite through the back door. The United Nations Security Council mandated a plebiscite half a century ago to allow Kashmiris to choose whether they would join India or Pakistan. (There was no third option.) It has never been held. The relevant UN resolutions have more or less lapsed and been declared unimplementable by Secretary General Kofi Annan. 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. This is likely to find backers among Pakistan's conservatives. Islamabad too would be inclined to support this because that weakens New Delhi's stranglehold over the political process in Kashmir. As a non-status-quo power, Pakistan is likely to back anything that questions India's dominance in Kashmir.

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. Such a demand could find reasonable acceptance in Kashmir, provided New Delhi indicates it is willing to offer Jammu and Kashmir exceptional autonomy or some other extraordinary concession. Monitoring of elections by friendly non-governmental organizations or eminent citizens is not new in South Asia. But the Indian government is prickly about election monitoring by "foreigners" and views it as interference with India's "sovereignty".

Another likely obstacle is the oath of allegiance to the Indian constitution that all candidates must take before contesting an election in Kashmir. Since many Hurriyat leaders question Kashmir's accession to India, they will be reluctant to take that oath - except for tactical convenience.

The obstacles are not insuperable. An independently monitored "official" election may be a far more practical alternative that an "unofficial" one cutting across national boundaries. "The monitoring will have credibility for the people if the observers have unimpeachable integrity and a strong record of defending human rights," says Jabbar.

Similar views are also expressed by some Kashmiri politicians, such as People's League leaders, who reject the Hurriyat's commission. Says League spokesman Manzoor Ahmad: "Mahatma Gandhi did not seek a mandate from the people for independence from the British. There is no need for such a commission."

Whether the Hurriyat proceeds with its plans or not remains unclear. In the past, it has often hesitated, prevaricated and changed decisions. However, the election proposal could well open a dialogue with the Indian government and with civil society groups. This would be welcome.

Even more welcome would be a serious change in India's official policy, which remains trapped between "anti-terrorism" hardliners who wish to emulate the United States and Israel, and those who want dialogue and reconciliation.

(Inter Press Service)