Elections in Kashmir - II An Argument for International Observation

29 May, 2002    ·   761

Suba Chandran says India has more to gain by inviting international observers

D Suba Chandran
D Suba Chandran
 Director
Farooq Abdullah, the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir has promised elections to the State Legislative Assembly this October. Whereas parties such as the National Conference, BJP, Congress and other minor parties are sure to participate, others have announced they would boycott. One major complaint of the parties that would boycott  has been that the elections conducted by the Indian government were never free and fair in the past and would never be in the future also. They repeatedly quote the rigged 1987 elections as the main reason for their non-participation. 

 

 

How to make the elections free and fair in Kashmir and increase faith in electoral process is the question. Obviously elections cannot be held by a third party. One option is to invite an international team to observe the election process and Farooq Abdullah, has agreed to this idea.

 

 

The immediate criticism against international observers would be the question of India ’s sovereignty and the lack of precedents. In the present global structure dominated by the IMF, World Bank and a host of transnational organizations, absolute sovereignty is a myth. The second issue – lack of precedents should be evaluated appreciating of what is happening in Kashmir at present and what is needed to restore the people’s confidence in the State elections. Empty jingoism and false national pride will not take India anywhere in getting the Kashmiris back into the national fold. An allied fear is that international observers would increase the demand for international mediation to resolve the crisis in Kashmir . Apropos during the Kargil War, India was not averse to bring people from outside to see what has been happening inside Kashmir . The same logic could be extended to elections. 

 

 

Many countries today are not averse to conducting elections under international observation. The role of international observers in the recently conducted national elections in Bangladesh created a positive reaction towards elections both inside and outside the country. Besides Bangladesh , Nepal and Sri Lanka also had international observers during the last elections. Today even countries like Russia are not averse to international observation of elections to their national legislatures but also their local bodies. 

 

 

There is no need for India to let international observers conduct elections, but India would have nothing to lose by asking an international team to observe the elections. A difference exists between international participation and international observation and this article argues for the latter. 

 

 

An international team of observers could be either voluntary or selected. Voluntary in the sense that India could issue an open invitation to the international community to come and observe the elections. Or India could ask specific countries, organizations and the media to come and observe them. Or a team could be invited under the auspices of the United Nations. There is also the Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL), a Bangkok-based regional network for monitoring elections in Asia . It should be emphasized that India , had sent its own observers to a number of countries in the past.

 

 

Any such international observation should not be limited only to polling. It should be expanded to include the entire election process. The international team should observe from the date of nomination to campaigning to the announcement of results. This would have many advantages especially in Jammu and Kashmir .

 

 

First, the entire international community would come to know, how free and fair the elections have been. This would ward off any unnecessary criticism about state rigging.

 

 

Secondly, it would also place India , the biggest democracy in the world, on a moral high ground. It should be remembered that our election process, despite the Bihar and UP exceptions have always been wondered. Allowing international observers would be an additional credit.

 

 

Thirdly, any such international observation adversely affect the anti-election organizations. The world community especially will understand who is for democracy and who is against within Kashmir . It would also understand how anti-election organizations like the APHC and the militants hold the Kashmiris under threat not to vote. An international observation of this phenemenon, is sure to increase pressure on the militants and their mentors across the borders. Even if they do not believe in democracy, they do not have any right to prevent others from practicing it. The presence of international observers, is sure to put the anti-elections groups on the back-foot.

 

 

Fourthly, it would increase the credibility of the election process both inside and outside the state. While those who are wavering on whether to vote or not due to the credibility factor, are sure to vote, this would create an impact on those who have made up their minds not to vote. Either way, it would increase the percentage of votes polled.

 

 

By allowing international observers, India has nothing to lose, but much to gain.

POPULAR COMMENTARIES