Elections in Kashmir - a Non-issue(By Professor Abdul Gani Butt)
Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory involves primarily the Peoples inalienable right to be the architects of their destiny. The denial of this right in contravention of internationally accepted principle has literally produced war like crisis in the entire Sub-continent. Every thing is gone--law, order, peace, security and ah: the dignity and honour too! In an environment where the very survival be the concern of each one of us the electoral process as an issue pales into insignificance .The debate whether a boycott is called or not is probably equally inconsequential for reasons never far to seek .The UN security council passed a resolution as far back as 50’s to the effect that no elections can either change the nature of the dispute or affect adversely the future dispensation of Jammu and Kashmir.
Jammu and Kashmir is never a homogeneous political entity .The contradictions in terms of geography, history, culture, language and even in terms of political aspirations demand that a sensible approach is adopted while dealing with any given situation in the region. Whether a boycott is called or not the voting happens. The people in Jammu division both Hindus and Muslims vote-Ladakh is no exception .This constitutes the half of the state. Look at Kashmir, the people in border areas under the shadow of soldier’s guns must vote. As far the planes, the pro-Indian political parties participate in the electoral process as a matter of policy and capture votes irrespective of the fact, whether the turnout is low or high. What should concern a political leader, representing the dispute, with his two eyes wide open that if he calls a boycott and voting happens, he lands himself , where? The situation being what it is, the voting happens ,boycott calls not- withstanding. Does he win or lose?The answer lies were it does . As a matter of fact he losses the battle .May I ask: did he win the battle or lost it in the last elections. I leave it to leaders with eyes wide open to come out. Where in a region with contradictions the voting is bound to happen, need the leaders call a boycott or declare the process as a non-issue and thus render the entire exercise inconsequential with reference to UN Security Council’s resolution. We need distinctly draw a line between elections and referendum. These are two different democratic methods – the former for governance and the later for dispensation .The elections happen after every five years and a referendum if and when organized will happens only once in a nation’s life time. He who mixes up , does no good to himself much less to the people he claims to represent .Elections , we call a non-issue for a simple reason that these exercises could neither in the past nor will in the future produce a result in terms of ‘resolution of the problem’ . May I ask yet another question that when voting happens in spite of boycott calls, who sells it at a huge premium this is the reason that we don’t want to use term “Boycott”. The term as a matter of strategy doesn’t go well with us . If you do the thinking you never run into trouble ;and if you don’t do it, God help you! We skip the term with a style to plead our case more effectively to the democrats around . We are not against elections as a democratic process but we never shall accept electoral process as a substitute for the peoples right to be the architects of their destiny . If elections could be an alternative , the wars wouldn’t have happened on Kashmir despite periodical elections .
We seek a settlement of Kashmir problem in the larger interests of a brighter future and a better world .Let us rise above –above yesterday, above hostility, above intransigence and the sub-continental irony ,and work out an acceptable ,honourable and a durable solution of Kashmir problem to the flutter of all hearts across the globe . Let us prefer to be human and leave fighting to the beasts.
Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory involves primarily the Peoples inalienable right to be the architects of their destiny. The denial of this right in contravention of internationally accepted principle has literally produced war like crisis in the entire Sub-continent. Every thing is gone--law, order, peace, security and ah: the dignity and honour too! In an environment where the very survival be the concern of each one of us the electoral process as an issue pales into insignificance .The debate whether a boycott is called or not is probably equally inconsequential for reasons never far to seek .The UN security council passed a resolution as far back as 50’s to the effect that no elections can either change the nature of the dispute or affect adversely the future dispensation of Jammu and Kashmir.
Jammu and Kashmir is never a homogeneous political entity .The contradictions in terms of geography, history, culture, language and even in terms of political aspirations demand that a sensible approach is adopted while dealing with any given situation in the region. Whether a boycott is called or not the voting happens. The people in Jammu division both Hindus and Muslims vote-Ladakh is no exception .This constitutes the half of the state. Look at Kashmir, the people in border areas under the shadow of soldier’s guns must vote. As far the planes, the pro-Indian political parties participate in the electoral process as a matter of policy and capture votes irrespective of the fact, whether the turnout is low or high. What should concern a political leader, representing the dispute, with his two eyes wide open that if he calls a boycott and voting happens, he lands himself , where? The situation being what it is, the voting happens ,boycott calls not- withstanding. Does he win or lose?The answer lies were it does . As a matter of fact he losses the battle .May I ask: did he win the battle or lost it in the last elections. I leave it to leaders with eyes wide open to come out. Where in a region with contradictions the voting is bound to happen, need the leaders call a boycott or declare the process as a non-issue and thus render the entire exercise inconsequential with reference to UN Security Council’s resolution. We need distinctly draw a line between elections and referendum. These are two different democratic methods – the former for governance and the later for dispensation .The elections happen after every five years and a referendum if and when organized will happens only once in a nation’s life time. He who mixes up , does no good to himself much less to the people he claims to represent .Elections , we call a non-issue for a simple reason that these exercises could neither in the past nor will in the future produce a result in terms of ‘resolution of the problem’ . May I ask yet another question that when voting happens in spite of boycott calls, who sells it at a huge premium this is the reason that we don’t want to use term “Boycott”. The term as a matter of strategy doesn’t go well with us . If you do the thinking you never run into trouble ;and if you don’t do it, God help you! We skip the term with a style to plead our case more effectively to the democrats around . We are not against elections as a democratic process but we never shall accept electoral process as a substitute for the peoples right to be the architects of their destiny . If elections could be an alternative , the wars wouldn’t have happened on Kashmir despite periodical elections .
We seek a settlement of Kashmir problem in the larger interests of a brighter future and a better world .Let us rise above –above yesterday, above hostility, above intransigence and the sub-continental irony ,and work out an acceptable ,honourable and a durable solution of Kashmir problem to the flutter of all hearts across the globe . Let us prefer to be human and leave fighting to the beasts.
No comments:
Post a Comment