This is a year of elections for India. We seem to be in a perpetual voting mode, with the political parties largely occupied in fighting for space on the ground. And such is the Indian dynamics, where the villager is astute, wise even is cynical, that the politicians are being kept on their toes to effect permutations and combinations that strike the lottery!
The result is continuing foment with the political dust not settling down. After the high voltage campaign that had the BJP coming into power, and the Opposition decimated, the electorate seems to have paused for some food for thought. And is not as influenced by the drum beating as one would have expected just three months after the general elections where the BJP was voted into power with a thumping tally of 283 Lok Sabha seats. By-elections for the assembly seats in states like Uttarakhand and the all-important Bihar have reflected a trend away from the BJP, making it clear that the voters are not prepared to live with a honeymoon for long until their demands are met and desires, if not satiated, at least addressed.
In Uttarakhand, the BJP lost all three seats to the Congress, one in fact being particularly significant as it was considered a BJP bastion. In Bihar, the secular forces of Nitish Kumar, Lalu Prasad Yadav and the Congress (a late entrant) managed to secure six of the 10 seats where elections were held again. This is no mean achievement, considering the fact that the BJP had swept into power in Bihar just three months ago.
Maharashtra, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir go to the polls this year with BJP President Amit Shah making it clear that he expects the party to come to power in all these states on its own. In a major gesture of confidence, he has negated all alliances, making it clear to the state units of his party that it should aim for power and prepare accordingly. This has created some heartburning amongst the allies in these states, but clearly the BJP is on an ascendant and not particularly worried about the reactions of say Shiv Sena in Maharashtra or the smaller parties it has worked with in Haryana.
These states are crucial also because there are Congress-led governments in all three, and a reversal will add substantially to the BJP’s ‘feel good’ factor. Party president Amit Shah visited Jammu recently, with the border state being given high priority by the party and its government as well. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has visited the area twice in quick succession. The BJP hopes to consolidate the vote in its favour in Jammu and Ladakh, replacing not just the Congress but the National Conference (NC) as well. The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) led by Mehbooba Mufti has a base in the Kashmir Valley but never really enjoyed sufficient support in the other parts of the state. So while it is expected to trounce the NC in the Valley, it might not gain as much as the BJP in Jammu and Ladakh.
The BJP has set up an active unit in Kashmir and is hoping to open its account in the valley with a couple of seats, if not more. Its proposed understanding with the PDP does not seem to have moved ahead, with the leaders of both exchanging jibes at the moment. Instead, the BJP has opened channels of communication with smaller parties like Sajad Lone and his Peoples Conference. They are in touch for some basic understanding before the elections, that could emerge out of the closet as an open alliance after the polls if so required. Shah has made it clear that he would like a ‘nationalist’ party, namely the BJP, to come to power in Jammu and Kashmir.
Boycott of the polls, a standard call by the separatists, is this time becoming a double-edged sword for the non-BJP political parties. Mainly as in at least six to eight of the Assembly segments there is a concentration of Kashmiri Pandits with the BJP working to get at least more than a lakh to be further registered as voters from these constituencies. If the non-Pandits heed the boycott call as they always do and stay indoors, the vote cast will ensure victory for the BJP.
All in all, interesting times ahead !
Published in The Express Tribune, September 2nd, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (45)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1713521455-0/Untitled-design-(9)1713521455-0-270x192.webp)
@G. Din: ET Mods minced my mean missive earlier, so a more moderate one, may they permit: You are wrong in implying that Dar-ul-Islam that you talk of is of any interest at all to me. Making guesses about others on forums is yet another kind of stereotyping absolutism! My concern is Indians not Chechen. I prefer democracy & I don't accept your kind of "theory" of sovereignty & such. It's primarily (even if not only) People that matter in a democracy not kings & potentates. It's your prerogative though to live in the world of princes & shahzadas. Be happy.
@Rakib: Hold that thought and tight. As long as you can do so, Kashmir, Xinjiang, Palestine, Mindanao, Chechnya, Syria etc., etc would not be lost to Dar-ul-Islam! All that depends on how tightly you hold that thought, my friend! Cheers!
@someone: I wonder why they were so inclined to change the name of India, Like North and South Korea, East and West Germany, North & South Yemen they should have continued with India as also indus river flows mainly thru their land. At least they would not be struggling for an identity.
@Haider: Hmm then should it not have been Bakistan? B for Bengalis. They are missing. Or may be Bengalis were not that important to West Pakistanis. Buddy, how long do you wish to live in your bubbles?
@G. Din: Problem with self-made Theories ("Sovereignty" in your case) is that once its author falls in love with it he becomes blind to everything else. Let alone European examples I hinted at but you didn't even get it when I mentioned Shamladas (also spelt as Samal Das)Gandhi & Junagadh. He was first cousin of the Mahatma. He proved that not Kings but Commoners decided & ONLY PEOPLE matter. The "Soverign" of Junagadh had signed Instrument of Accession with "Sovereign" Pakistan (Governor General Jinnah) exactly as "Sovereign" Hari Singh of J&K had signed with "Soverign" Mountbatten-GG of India. And yet, since PEOPLE of Junagadh did not want to join Pakistan, in due course Samaldas Gandhi's people's provisional govt got a Plebiscite conducted by an ICS Officer CB Nagarkar on February 20, 1948 in Junagadh & its Five satellite States. [Out of an electorate of 2,01,457, 1,90,870 cast their votes. 91 voted for Pakistan. Of the 31,434 votes cast in the five princeling areas, only 39 voted for accession to Pakistan.] The merger with India was complete. So don't give me this Sovereignty without People rubbish. And the saying of possession being nine tenth in law applies equally or even more favourably to Pakistan & China in case of Hari Singh's original J&K that he had signed away to India, but you won't see that.
@Rakib: "Reg Sovereignty I pose some teasers but one has to first get rid of the romance:" You may change that opinion after you have read this response fully (provided the moderators allow it)
"Was the transfer of power to India-Pak from Britain a contract between two Sovereigns or was it a gratis gift/ grant from the King to the Commoners, courtesy Atlee? Contrary to romantic notions, I hold that the transfer of power was not because of Gandhi's Satyagraha (not at least entirely) but it was solely because of the exigencies WWII imposed on Great Britain. Together with the prospective costs of rebuilding the "mother country", a rebellious population of India on its hands and the greed of a rising superpower, US, which saw a possible significant client state in India ( later proved not to be so outlandish by the behaviour of Pakistan), Attlee made the wise choice he did. Still, it can be averred without contradiction that the transfer of power to India was a gracious (not generous) gift from its Sovereign, Britain. "Why was IoA signed by Hari Singh on one side & Lord Mountbatten on the other & not an Indian if indeed India was Sovereign? " Because, Lord Mounbtbatten was not only an Authorized Agent of the British Monarch but also the Governor General of the Indian Dominion. In his latter capacity, Lord Mountbatten performed his duties most loyally to India when he explicitly refused Indian military help to the beleaguered Maharaja unless and until he had signed the IoA, and made his state an integral part of India. It was only after that IoA was received that Indian Army was airlifted into Srinagar. " In case of this Subcontinent therefore making absolute assertions is risky. " I pride myself on NOT being an absolutist. So, absolutism is not only wrong in matters pertaining to this subcontinent but in ALL cases. Although that may sound absolutism, that is one exception one must accept. "Possession is nine tenth of the law. Period." You got it. That, my friend, in other words is called SOVEREIGNTY. Right or wrong, that is the world we are living in. That is what Babar tried and set up a dynasty in India. That is what Musharraf was doing in Kargil - and failed therein.
@Haider: Your article clearly states that Jinnah was clear that it was upto the king of J&K. I send transcript and you are sending an article which call congress as Hindu whereas Hindu calls congress as representative of Muslims. NWFP became part after voting for Pakistan. Baluchistan became part of Pakistan after rulers signed instrument of accession willing or by force to Pakistan as Pakistan was supposed to get max 25% of the land of British India as per Muslims population. Jinnah was very clear that Baluchistan will be part of Pakistan and also stated to Mountbatten and demanded immediate transfer of troops for that. Sardar patel refused.
@Rakib: 100% agree with your statement that partition of princely state was not part of division at the time of partition. I just stated the condition that was proposed by Sardar to Pakistan for having Muslims majority Kashmir post independence.
@G. Din: (ET: Do please permit this reply. This may be my last mail on this thread) Wonder how Shamladas Gandhi (Junagarh) & KM Munshi (Hyderabad) would have responded to you. I am not going to embarrass anybody with examples of secessions, dissolution of unions, separations after referendums etc including in Europe starting 1905. One can find out. The Case of Kashmir on either side is not to be based on such precedences or lack thereof. We are unique. Sir Zafarullah/ Mr.VKK menon had their strong arguments but the men are forgotten. Reg Sovereignty I pose some teasers but one has to first get rid of the romance:- Was the transfer of power to India-Pak from Britain a contract between two Sovereigns or was it a gratis gift/ grant from the King to the Commoners, courtesy Atlee? Delegated sovereignty of Princes apart was India sovereign,or was Hari's & India's Sovereign King George the Sixth who approved British Act granting Indo-Pak Independence but not Sovereignty? Check out the date of Instrument of Accession (IoA).(26/10/47). King officially stopped calling himself the Emperor of India only on 21/6/48. Why was IoA signed by Hari Singh on one side & Lord Mountbatten on the other & not an Indian if indeed India was Sovereign? (Today an Italy born Indian is made great fuss about!) Wasn't India a Dominion in 47-50 (so was Pakistan till 56)? To whom belonged the allegiance of the First (Mountbatten) as well as the Last (Rajgopalachari) Governor Generals till 26th Jan 1950 when on that day word "Sovereign" was used for the first time & R.Prasad took over. One can argue against much of the above. In case of this Subcontinent therefore making absolute assertions is risky. Possession is nine tenth of the law. Period.
@Rakib: For Modi all Kashmiris must be Indians you say and here is something where I finally agree. These people cetainly are granted all rights due to an Indian. But the question is does that mean PAkistan a) can speak to them and b) treat them as representatives of Kashmir? Answer to both those questions is an unambiguous no.
@Rakib: "They (states outside of British India) were given choices but “partition” was not one of them." Continuing on that, that choice was to be exercised by the sovereign of that territory, not by its people. In no instance throughout the recorded human history, were the people allowed to make that choice. Territories, like any property, belong to sovereigns. That sovereignty may come by way of conquest (Muslim, British in India, US in Hawaii for instance) or overthrow of an existing sovereign by a people's revolution (Bolshevik revolution overthrowing czars) or straight purchase ("Louisiana Purchase" from the French to US, for example) or gift (Alaska, from Russia to US). The whole basis of "Kashmiri self-determination" without a transitional change in sovereignty of a territory is totally queer, vacuous and untenable.
@vinsin: J&K was one of 635 Princely States of India.Under Independence of India Act 1947 of British Parliament no such State could be divided. They were given choices but "partition" was not one of them.
@Gp65: Lack of representative nature of groups was never the issue & India never ceased considering Khalistani/Naga/Mizo/Manipuri-Separatists as "Indians" to talk to them despite knowing who got what support from which neighbour. Most Indians,including BJP supporters, consider Kashmir India's 'atoot ang' (inseparable part) & believe its accession final. For Modi all Kashmiris including Muslims (despite his known aversions) must be "Indians". That means Kashmiris that are Hurriyat members are also "Indians" (despite their known aversions) irrespective of political beliefs. And yet his govt doesn't want to talk to them or they being talked to or met with. What is he scared of? Pakistanis? Jashwant Singh was far more self-assured despite Kandahar episode. Also, by preventing talks at all levels Modi doesn't have to make known the well known that now BJP-RSS suffers from acute atrophy of secular-democratic instincts.
@Haider: Pakistan means land of pure., where is Bangladesh? https://sites.google.com/site/cabinetmissionplan/mountbatten-and-jinnah-negotiations-on-pakistan-april-
You are talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChoudhryRahmatAli, There was no 'i' in it. Jinnah never accepted that as he decided to have Lahore and full Sind instead. Had Jinnah proposed Britishers would have divided the Kashmir just like Punjab and Bengal. The later idea was to have Bengali Muslims also in Pakistan with partitioning Kashmir, which not possible now. I have mentioned clearly - India issue is of land that on partition India was supposed to get 75% of land for non-muslims as per population
@Haider: Sorry to burst your bubble buddy but pakistan= pak+ stan or as we say in sanskrit or hindi, sthan means place. So it was supposed to be a pak sthan that means a clean place. But as it turned out to be an exact opposite what its founder imagined. However all is not lost yet. The young generation of pakistan need to read history from extefnal resources and then may be one day they would be able to turn it around. I don't have much hopes from current generation of Pakistan. They are damaged beyond repair.
@Haider: What you said is right and India never claimed otherwise also? India issue is of land that on partition India was supposed to get 75% of land for non-muslims as per population. Jinnah also never asked for partition of Kashmir from Mountbatten. Please Publish.
@doesnt matter: Lucknow is a hindu-majority city.....check facts
Dear Madam,
Who told you that Nitish Kumar, Lalu & Congress is secular. One does not become secular just by shouting that they are secular, actions speak louder than words.
@doesnt matter When did lucknow become a muslim majority ???
I guess the biggest thing that concerns people like Ms. Mustafa is the consolidation of the Hindu votes against Pseudo-secularism. To be fair to the author their concern is BJP is using unnecessarily fear psychosis to rally the Hindu votes.But isn't that what exactly Congress has been doing to get muslim votes across India.
Please allow me to respond to someone that has written to me.
@Rakib: I did not imply what you think I implied. My point is that A) the government has consulted Omar who is the elected representative of J&K. B) Omar cannot claim that government cancelling alks on Hurriyat issue implies it is ignoring opinions of people of J&K without also admitting that - Hurriyat represents them and he doesn't. - He does not believe in Simla agreement which states in no uncertain terms that Kashmir issue is bilateral. This means that Pakistan can consult people in the part of J&K it administers and India would do the same but Pakistan cannot reach out to Kashmiri insurgents who have in no way proved that they even represent Muslims of the valley let alone Kashmiri Pandits and people of Jammu and Ladakh.
Appreciate your direct and straightforward response to the other question.
@Rakib: how did BJP win in muslim majority Lucknow then? o.O
@Gp65: You asked:-(Should you care what the religion of the person representing Muslims of the valley as long as elections are free and fair) There is no question of "Muslim" representation; it has to be "Kashmiri". One mustn't care for religion of candidate. Only his Ideology matters. IMO, Hindutva ideology of BJP under RSS shoild be opposed democratically & the candidate who represents that should be defeated, thru ballot-box, regardless of his religion. Once Farooq Abdullah's NC too was part of NDA under Vajpayee of same ideology but times & leaders have changed since then.
@Rakib: When writing to gp65 first intone..er..write the mantra : "Rising India, Vibrant India, Shining India, Lord Modi has arrived" "Banaras, here I come"..[then the comment]
@Gp65: You have grumbled to ET about my 'bad logic' & presented following as one of counter arguments, reduced by me to a syllogism: 1.Omar tweets on everything including IITs 2. He did not tweet about cancelled Indo-Pak talks 3. Therefore, Omar knew all about it from PM/DM when they met. Do you realise what logical fallacy is committed? That's what love for Modi/BJP does to perfectly nice folk! ET-Mods have not published my earlier long response to you & I can't pester them. And since you asked: no, I am not Secular. I am individual not an Institution of State.
@Gulwant Singh Bedi: BJP maynot get the 44 seats single handedly for the majority in Jammu and Kashmir - which is by all means a stretch goal but it is likely to emerge as the single largest party. You are perhaps not aware that in the recent parliamentary elections, BJP won 3 out of 6 seats in J&K and PDP led by Mehbooba Mufti won 3.
Please do also point out which comments are hate filled. Disagreement with the author using facts and logic does not amount to hate and certainly cannot be called trolling.
ET Mods - the issue of pleniscite/ referendum always comes up whenever Kashmir is discussed and somehow, many Pakistanis seem to not be familiar with terms of the UN resolution. Please pulish to add to their knowledge.
@Huma: Because referendum (or plebiscite) needs to be held in the ENTIRE Jammu and Kashmir not just the part that India administers. The prerequisites that were documented in UN resolution are: 1) Pakistan army vacates the part pf Kashmir it is occupying- which it never did 2) the demography of Kashmir should be preserved - India did so through aricle 370 but Pakistan did not. 3) Also ENTIRE J&K includes the part that Pakistan gifted to China and Pakistan has no ability to ensure plebiscite in that part.
Mainly due to reasons 2) and 3), it became clear to India that plebiscite was impossible to conduct in its spirit and hence Simla agreement was signed making the issue bilateral.
@ Huma, Because of historical reasons ... India can not allow states to hold referendum based on religion ... if you Pakistanis want Kashmir, you also have to take all the Indian Muslims as per the logic of partition ... deal or no deal ... ??
Modi has good way to connect with people. I am sure he will be able to reach out to kashmiris as well.
Look at the negativity. The hate displayed here by Modi trolls. Modi/BJP will not win in Jammu and Kashmir. They don't like him.
If India can hold elections in Kashmir, then why can't it hold a referendum on independence like the one taking place in Scotland. It will forever make it an 'integral' part of India.
ET Mods- Please allow a counterargument to a comment that is based on bad logic.
@Rakib: Let us say Omar makes the claim you suggest i.e. that BJP does not care about peace in Jammu and Kashmir based on its approach towards Hurriyat. This assumes that he accepts Pakostani claim that Hurriyat and (not he as elected CM) represents people of Jammu and Kashmir. He would also be sognalling further that the only people whose concens in the matter of dispute with Pakistan he cares are the Muslims of the valley and not the Pandits, Hindus of Jammu or Buddhists of Leh whom Hurriyat has never claimed to represent.
Secondly, both BJP PM and defense minister has met Omar, so to claim that people of J&K have Not been consulted by government of India would have been disingenuous unless he says he does nt represent them.
It is for these reasons that Omar who is otherwise quite quick to tweet on everything including how many IITs there should be in the country was quite silent when the talks were called off.
It also seems that you and Ms. Mustafa are concerned that BJP may indeed win some seats in the valley instead of PDP or NC who in your opinion are entitled. I would like to ask you and Ms. Mustafa one more question: Should you care what the religion of the person representing Muslims of the valley as long as elections are free and fair, if you are truly secular?
BJP strategy is good but it may lead to additional strain on inter-community relations. The decision of Delhi to boycott talks with Pakistan because of separatist/envoy meet has made J&K Legislative Council to take a formal stand. It will now be Omar Abdullah's (NC) plank that Modi is not really bothered about Kashmiri masses, about peace in Valley or in preventing bloodshed on LoC.; and that if talks don't take place soon trade/travel across LoC will permanently come to a standstill. NC/PDP/Congress may ask Hurriyat to at least stay neutral during election. What concessions Hurriyat will extract in exchange is anybody's guess. Delhi has unwittingly helped the separatist to get into limelight.
Madam, You have assumed that all valley's Muslim are a monolith and communal and will only vote in a communak fashion for a Muslim majorityparty. What if thatis nit true and they choose to vote for development?
Comparing 4 seats when BJP contested alone vs a combine of JD, RJD, Congress to 6 seats when it was allied with JD(U) and Congress, RJD contested alone in a first past the oal post system is hardly an apple to apple comparison. In any case Nitish has suddenly become secular because he quit alliance with BJP? The fact that he contested both 2005 and 2010 elections as part of NDA alliance and even served as union minister in an NDA government in 1998-2004 seems to have slipped your memory. You also seem to support Laloo who is not even eligible to contest the elections. What are your views on SP government under whose watch maximum communal incidents have occurred? Also secular? Desoite promising reservation on the basis of religion?
You are being less than honest when ou say Amit Shah has indicated ago it alone strategy in Maharashtra. This is clearly untrue.
Then , Ms.Mustafa , you should be happy for BJP . After all we need full integration of state . Doesn't bother us .
First of all, during all the state elections last year where the Congress received a drubbing, you had felt that state elections are different from those to Lok Sabha - I wonder what has caused you to feel differently now? Second, on Bihar, we forget one important point, which is that BJP had won several seats as junior partner in alliance with the JD (U), and is now going it alone - thus winning 4 out of 10 seats is creditable (they occupied 6 seats before). The key message here is to BJP workers in the states, who may have been under the misconception that the Modi wave will carry them through - they will need to put in the same effort as in the Lok Sabha if they want to see similar results.
On J&K, I agree that a boycott call by the Hurriyat will help the BJP, which must really be putting them in a tizzy :). Game on.
since when Nitish Kumar, Lalu Prasad Yadav and the Congress (a late entrant) are secular forces? All of them opposed secularism. There is no secular party in India as Indian Muslims dont vote secular party. Muslim appeasement is not secularism.
What was the only difference between the parliamentary elections and the by-polls? Modi did not campaign! For someone who saw the Modi wave only after the elections, this is a sure sign that you were wrong.
Well Ms. Mustafa, just like your other nightmare of Modi's victory, this one would become true as well.
Not sure about other states, but BJP needs allies in JK. There are rumors BJP may strike alliance with parties in the valley and even allow some one from the valley be the chief minister. It could even be Sajad Lone. This could be a good omen for the state.