Jammu and Kashmir- Elections and echoes from the past
A Historical and Political Odyssey from State Formation to the Modi Era
(Tara Kharat and Dr. Shivakumar Jolad )
Agar firdaus bar roo-e zameen ast, Hameen ast-o hameen ast-o hameen ast. ~ If there is paradise on this earth, it is thus, it is this, it is this. — Amir Khusrau.
After 10 years, Jammu and Kashmir were held recently, now as a Union Territory. The key contenders, the NC-Congress-CPIM alliance, BJP, and PDP vied for the 90 seats in the Assembly. Omar Abdullah returned as Chief minister after 9 years. Demand for restoration of statehood to J&K was promised by all political parties (including BJP) is one of the key issues of the current elections. The elections in Jammu and Kashmir offer a pivotal moment for a region long riddled with friction and political turmoil, especially after the abolition of Article 370 in 2019. The abolition of Article 370 illustrates what influenced the region’s political landscape after being split into two Union Territories. As the people’s calls for reviving statehood can be overlooked no longer, the 2024 elections are beyond just an exercise of democracy but rather a historical juncture where the question of the region’s ‘tomorrow’ hangs in the balance. It is time to reflect on the state’s political history and trace the current debates’ undercurrents.
Rooted in a complex and unique history, Jammu and Kashmir, once tagged as a princely state under the Dogra rule, was pushed to align with India by ruler Maharaja Hari Singh on October 26, 1947, amidst violent invasions from Pakistani tribal militia. This accession set the stage for decades of turmoil which ultimately bore the consequences of the overall territorial dispute between India and Pakistan.
Since the formation of the princely state and the signing of the ‘Instrument of Accession’ with the Indian government on October 26, 1947, Jammu and Kashmir’s political trajectory has been greatly turbulent, rife with insurgencies and demands for sovereignty.
The Formation of Jammu and Kashmir State
To fully appreciate the 1951 elections in Jammu and Kashmir, it’s crucial to understand the region’s historical context. The state, once known as “Riyasat-e Jammu wa Kashmir wa Ladakh wa Tibet,” was a mosaic of diverse regions. Jammu had long been under Dogra rule, independently or under larger empires like Delhi or the Suba of Punjab. Kashmir, on the other hand, experienced varied rulers, with Mughal control beginning in 1586 under Emperor Akbar, and lasting until 1752. Afghan rule followed, marked by instability, until the Sikhs, led by Maharaja Ranjit Singh, annexed Kashmir in 1819. The Sikh rule which lasted until 1846 provided administrative reforms but was also marked by religious persecution.
Ladakh, distinct due to its Tibetan Buddhist affiliations, remained independent until the Dogra general, Zorawar Singh, annexed it in 1834. His military campaigns further expanded Dogra influence, notably incorporating Gilgit-Baltistan into the kingdom. This transformation positioned Ladakh as a strategic hub along the Silk Route, bridging Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, while underlining the Dogras’ expanding dominance across northern India.
The 1846 Anglo-Sikh War significantly reshaped the region. With the Treaty of Amritsar, Dogra Raja Gulab Singh acquired the entire kingdom for 75 lakh Nanak Shahi rupees. Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, and Gilgit-Baltistan were unified under Dogra rule, creating a vast princely state home to a variety of cultures, religions, and ethnic groups. The Kashmir valley had a Muslim majority, Jammu with Hindus and Sikhs, and sparsely inhabited Ladakh had a Buddhist majority. This very melting pot of identities would soon become a trigger for the region’s turbulent politics.
The British Raj was a major contributing factor in consolidating the princely state under Dogra rulers. The Dogra rule was marked by heavy taxation and economic exploitation, causing resentment among the populace. Though the British supported the Dogras’ control, the state’s deep diversity and simmering discontent hinted at the political unrest that would later shape its tumultuous history.
Fast forward to 1947, Jammu and Kashmir’s link to the overall conflict of the Partition only got remarkably explicit. Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir initially sought to maintain the region’s independence, avoiding integration into either democratic India or Islamic Pakistan. He delayed decisions, fueled by his Prime Minister Ram Chandra Kak. Despite overtures from Jinnah offering autonomy, the Maharaja resisted, recognizing potential complications. In September 1947, Pastun tribal militias, backed by the Muslim League, initiated revolts in western Kashmir. Facing advancing tribesmen, the Maharaja sought India’s help and, on October 26, 1947, signed the Instrument of Accession, officially joining Jammu and Kashmir to India. This sealed the region’s role in history as a flashpoint of challenged sovereignty, complex identities, and enduring conflict.
Maharajah Hari Singh (www.frontline.thehindu.com)
Shaikh Abdullah
In the 1930s, Shaik Abdullah became a prominent leader in Kashmir. In 1932, he founded the All J&K Muslim Conference which was largely confined to Kashmir Valley. Later taking a more inclusive approach, Abdullah transformed the Muslim Conference into the Jammu & Kashmir NationalConference (NC) in 1938, opening membership to Hindus and Sikhs and changing the party flag from green with a white crescent to red with a white plough. In May 1946, Sheikh Abdullah initiated the Quit Kashmir movement against Maharaja Hari Singh, which led to his arrest and a three-year imprisonment sentence. He was released after just sixteen months in September 1947, following interventions by Nehru and Gandhi.
Sheikh Abdullah (www.indiatoday.in)
Political Evolution and Early Challenges (1948–1980s)
The years following the 1947 Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India saw further rise of Sheikh Abdullah, the first prime minister of Jammu and Kashmir. Abdullah’s government aimed to implement progressive reforms, focusing on land redistribution and social justice, thus reflecting the aspirations of a diverse populace that yearned for representation and self-determination. As an emerging central figure, he strongly endorsed the promise of autonomy under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 370, granted substantial autonomy to the J&K. It limited the power of Parliament to make laws for the state, it exempted the State from the complete applicability of the Constitution of India, and allowed it to have its own state Constitution.
In 1951, Dr. Karan Singh (son of Hari Singh) announced elections for a Constituent Assembly in Jammu and Kashmir. The JKNC won all 75 seats, with the Praja Parishad boycotting the elections. The Assembly convened in October 1951. In August 1953, Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah was dismissed, arrested, and replaced by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed. Protests followed, resulting in 70 deaths. In February 1954, the Assembly ratified Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India, and in November 1956, it formally adopted the state’s constitution.
However, political tensions soon arose, resulting in Abdullah’s arrest in 1953. These tensions soon escalated when Abdullah’s advocacy for autonomy clashed with the Indian Central Government’s disdain for the same, as they desired greater control over the region instead. Abdullah’s dismissal marked the beginning of a new era, denoted by direct intervention by New Delhi in Kashmir’s political affairs. Many regarded this as an immense treachery of the commitments promised during accession.
The geopolitical landscape only worsened with the Indo-Pak War of 1965, which underscored Jammu and Kashmir’s strategic significance as regarded by India’s national security framework. The conflict not only intensified with the concentrated military presence but also sowed the seeds of local insecurity and mistrust that would fester in the people of Kashmir for years to come.
The 1975 accord between Sheikh Abdullah and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi brought hope during a time of turmoil. It showed that reconciliation between Kashmir’s regional aspirations and India’s national integration was possible. Abdullah was restored to power following the landmark agreement, yet the very foundations of this diplomatic thaw served to become a double-edged sword. Some may have felt discontent when learning their aspirations were sacrificed for political gain. Ultimately, the region saw an increasingly polarized political climate where aspirations for liberation locked heads with the realities and desires of centralized governance, priming the future for tumultuous events that were sure to follow in the decades ahead.
From Insurgency to Reforms (1990s-2010s)
The early 1990s was a turning point for Jammu and Kashmir, with the rise in violence backed by militancy and political agitation. Rigged elections in 1987, rising frustrations with the Indian state, and support from across the border only added fuel to the fire that was an insurgency that would not be ending any time soon. Widespread violence was the theme for this period, with a peak in armed militia demanding independence or accession to Pakistan. The mass exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits, a minority Hindu community, was a tragic product of this conflict, where the Pandits were forced to flee the Valley for their safety. This displacement played havoc with the region’s demographic makeup and the very social fabric, with the Pandits living in exile ever since. Slogans like these were very commonly used at the time. “Khoon-e-Shaheeda Rang Laya…Mazhab ka Parcham Lehraya…Jago Jago Subah Hogi…Roos ne baazi haari hai…Hind pe larza tari hai…Ab KASHMIR ki baari hai…Jago Jago Subah hogi”.
“In January 2013, when this picture was taken, retired government employee Omkarnath Bhat, then 75 years old, was the only Kashmiri Pandit remaining in Haal village of Shopian in South Kashmir. Haal was once home to over 100 Kashmiri Pandit families, the empty shells of whose homes stood in the village when The Indian Express visited Bhat. (Shuaib Masoodi/Express Archive)” (www.indiatoday.in)
As violence escalates, thousands of Kashmiri Pandits are displaced (estimates vary from 100,000 to 450,000). In response to this conflict, the President’s Rule was imposed, which placed the region under the direct control of the central administration, with counter-insurgency plans following right after. Tens of thousands of troops had been deployed to deal with the insurgent groups. However, these efforts also operated as human rights violations, extra-judicial killing, etc, which ultimately further estranged the local demography. The state struggled to leave behind its’ near-constant state of siege even with New Delhi’s attempts to aid with security.
By the 2000s, political stability had become clearer on the horizon as the Indian government initiated efforts to restore democratic processes. The 2002 elections, although not entirely devoid of controversy, was a step in this direction with improved voter turnout. This period also saw the rise of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), founded by Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. The NC was responsible for stabilizing governance via forming coalitions with local governments, while the PDP aimed to heal the relationship between the Indian central government and Kashmir’s aspirations, all while pushing for greater independence and reduced military intervention.
While the insurgency was still prevalent, these efforts were instrumental in symbolizing the restoration of democratic norms. The region experienced economic development and relative peace compared to preceding decades of violence and unrest. However, underlying issues of human rights, autonomy, and the insurgency still lingered, hinting at the potential reopening of Pandora’s Box.
The Modi Era and the Abrogation of Article 370 (2014-present)
The rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Jammu and Kashmir gained momentum after 2014 when it aligned with the PDP to assemble a coalition government. This alliance was an attempt to bridge the divide between Hindu-majority Jammu and Muslim-majority Kashmir. However, this pragmatic move remained heavy with tensions as the BJP continued to press on its long-standing agenda- the abrogation of Article 370.
On August 5th, 2019, the Modi Government made the decisive and divisive move to abolish Article 370, thereby removing the constitutionally-provided special status that Jammu and Kashmir was tagged with for several decades. Overnight, the government had bifurcated the region into two Union territories- Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir.
The rationale? For the BJP, this meant national integration and security. The government strongly advocated for how Article 370 kept Jammu and Kashmir in isolation and majorly hindered economic development. Modi’s government presented the abrogation as an opportunity for investments, job creation, and equal rights for all. This decision was promised to be a step towards bringing unremitting peace and guaranteeing that Jammu and Kashmir would be on equivalent ground with the rest of India.
But the intricate web of reality is far more complicated. Kashmir responded in anger as a complete communication blackout smothered dissent. Phones went dead, the internet vanished and Kashmir found itself in the epicenter of a military lockdown. Renowned military leaders like Farooq Abdullah, Omar Abdullah, and Mehbooba Mufti, were placed under detention. The suffocating control ensured swiftly crushed protests, rising human rights violations, and curtailed civil liberties.
Internationally, the bold move sent shockwaves over the global political landscape. While India maintained the abrogation of Article 370 as an internal matter, Pakistan chose a strong point of opposition, condemning this move on the global stage. Several human rights organizations like Amnesty International voiced their concerns about the mistreatment of civilians.
Economically, Jammu and Kashmir witnessed a dramatic nosedive. Tourism, agriculture, and trade were now all paralyzed elements with the rise of communication blockades and curfews. Financial losses plunged into billions as Kashmiris found themselves at a fork in the road battling with the government’s promises of great development and the grim reality of isolation.
The aftermath of the abrogation led Jammu and Kashmir into unchartered political landscapes. Political activity was at a standstill, and when elections finally occurred for local bodies, it was dismissed as nothing more than the legitimization of the central government’s authority. Yet, questions about the restoration of statehood, the return of political normalcy, and the future of regional autonomy loom large. What began as a promise of greater integration has left Jammu and Kashmir standing at a crossroads — where uncertainty reigns, and the fallout from these historic changes continues to reshape the region’s future.
The Demand for Statehood and the Road Ahead (2020–2024)
The post-Article 370 navigation scenes for Jammu and Kashmir continue to demand the restoration of statehood, backed by the advocacy of the NC and the PDP. Civil society heavily mirrors these sentiments and views the restoration of statehood as imperative to the region’s autonomy and a much-needed step in the direction of democratic rule. Interestingly, many in BJP voice their demands for the same as they believe it could aid with the lingering displeasure in the region.
These sentiments have not been dismissed by the central government. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah have stated that the arrangement is ‘temporary’ and Kashmir’s statehood will be reinstated (with no clear timeline). Modi frames this eventual return to statehood as contingent on the region’s security and development. However, for many these claims are hollow as they grapple with very real political uncertainty.
The 2024 elections carry immense significance in this context. These elections have immense potential to signal a shift towards the long-promised autonomy or solidify the Union Territory status. The NC and PDP champion themselves as the ultimate advocates for Kashmiri identity and autonomy, using the demand for statehood as their rallying cry. Meanwhile, new political entrants, likely backed by central governance, attempt to take away some of the glamour from these entities to instead position themselves as beacons for the future, promising development and stability over identity politics.
Electoral alliances act as a significant contributing factor in shaping the result. The BJP will likely emphasize security and development, focusing on its achievements post-abrogation. On the other hand, regional parties will likely form alliances to counter the BJP, uniting on a platform of restoring statehood and addressing local grievances. The aspirations of the younger Kashmiri generations, increasingly disillusioned with both regional and national politics, further act as a decisive factor as they seek stable futures, employment, and education.
Nationally, the 2024 elections could redefine the narrative on Kashmir. How these elections unfold will influence the broader discourse on Kashmir’s place within India and shape the future trajectory of the region, potentially determining whether it remains under central management or reclaims its statehood and sovereignty.
Jammu and Kashmir’s political journey is one of turbulence, turmoil, and most importantly, resilience. The region has faced several historical crossroads from the Dogra Dynasty to its complicated post-1947 evolution. The abrogation of Article 370 is likely the most significant change in Jammu and Kashmir’s modern history, shaping its relationship with India in a mix of hope and uncertainty. The stakes could not be higher for the approaching 2024 elections.
Will they fulfill long-standing demands for autonomy? Can they revive democratic processes? And most crucially, will they bridge the gap between the aspirations of the people of Kashmir and the central government’s vision of integration? We will have to wait and see how this unfolds under the new Government.
References
- Chopra, S. (2023b). We, the People of the States of Bharat: The Making and Remaking of India’s Internal Boundaries. Harper Collins.
- Menon, V. P. (1972). The story of the integration of the Indian States.
- Shri Pratap Singh Museum, Srinagar
- Noorani, A. G. (2017). The Kashmir Dispute, 1947–2012.
- Bhasin, A. (2022). A dismantled state: The Untold Story of Kashmir After Article 370.
- Frontline, T. (2022, August 10). 1947: Maharaja Hari Singh signs Instrument of Accession. Frontline.
- Sinha, A. (2022, March 30). The Tragedy of Kashmiri Pandits. Arunesh Blog. https://aruneshblog.com/the-tragedy-of-kashmiri-pandits/
- The Hindu Bureau. (2024, September 17). Jammu &Kashmir Elections 2024: All you need to know. The Hindu.
- Siddiqui, Z., & Bhardwaj, M. (2019, August 8). Kashmir communications blackout angers some in the Indian media. Reuters.
- India Today. (2017, December 5). Sheikh Abdullah birth anniversary: 112 years on, Jammu and Kashmir remembers its ‘Lion’. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/sheikh-abdullah-birth-anniversary-112-jammu-and-kashmir-1100671-2017-12-05
- India Today. (2016, January 19). Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits: 26 years ago, on January 19, they fled their homes in the Valley. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/exodus-of-kashmiri-pandits-january-19-jammu-and-kashmir-304487-2016-01-19
