India dissolves Kashmir assembly, fresh polls likely

[Dubious]

Jittery over a 'grand alliance' bid to form government, the BJP-backed governor dissolves the state assembly.

by Rifat Fareed
an hour ago

In past two years, Kashmir saw a spike in gun battles between security forces and the rebels (Mukhtar Khan/AP)

Srinagar, India-administered Kashmir - The legislative assembly in India-administered Kashmir has been dissolved, a move likely to lead to fresh elections in the troubled state that has seen violence escalate in the last few years.

Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik dissolved the assembly on Wednesday, shortly after former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti staked claim to form the government by forming a "grand alliance" with two rival parties.

Mufti, whose People's Democratic Party (PDP) had 29 lawmakers in the 87-member assembly, claimed she had the support of the National Conference (NC), which had 15, and 12 from the Congress.


Mehbooba Mufti

✔@MehboobaMufti

Oddly enough our pleas fell on deaf ears. But who would have thought that the very idea of a grand coalition would give such jitters. 3/4
21:33 - 21 Nov 2018

Minutes later, Sajad Lone of the People’s Conference (PC), posted on Twitter a letter he said he had sent to Malik, claiming he had the support of the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to form his government.



Sajad Lone@sajadlone
20:04 - 21 Nov 2018

But Governor Malik, in a statement, said "there is the impossibility of forming a stable government by the coming together of political parties with opposing political ideologies".

"The best course of action is to dissolve the assembly so as to provide stability and security to the state and hold elections at an appropriate time so that a government with a clear mandate is duly formed," the statement said.



ANI

✔@ANI

Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik has passed an order dissolving the state Legislative Assembly.
20:42 - 21 Nov 2018

Until June this year, the Jammu and Kashmir state was ruled by a coalition of the Hindu nationalist BJP and the PDP formed in 2014.

The alliance, touted as coming together of the "north and south poles", was fraught with friction between the two partners on how to deal with the issues facing the region.

In June, the BJP withdrew its support to the PDP, forcing Mufti to resign in protest against the "muscular policy" in Kashmir", which referred to the hard line tactics adopted by the central government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

As a result, governor's rule was imposed in the state, effectively giving Modi's government direct control over the troubled state.

On Wednesday, the BJP hit out at the "grand alliance" parties, calling them "terror-friendly".

"Jammu and Kashmir needs a firm administration to deal with terrorism and not a combination of terror-friendly parties," the party posted.

"The best option in such a scenario is to go for fresh elections at the earliest. This assembly cannot produce a stable government."


BJP

✔@BJP4India

The best option in such a scenario is to go in for a fresh election at the earliest. This assembly cannot produce a stable government.
21:46 - 21 Nov 2018

Political uncertainty
"It seems the BJP wanted a long spell of governor’s rule. The three rival parties, by their stake to form a grand alliance, tried to evade it," Dr Sheikh Showkat Hussain, a Kashmir-based academic, told Al Jazeera.

Hussain said if a party or alliance claims to form the government, it must be given a chance to prove its majority on the floor of the assembly.

"There has always been political uncertainty in Kashmir, but the current situation is different because of the adverse security situation," he said.

The local residents, however, alleged the BJP wants to create a "split in Kashmir".

"To us, it does not matter who rules the state, because things hardly change for people. It is ultimately ruled by Delhi, the local government is always insignificant in big matters," said 45-year-old Mushtaq Ahmad.

"But the way the BJP is now behaving, they are brazen in their hostility towards Kashmir," he said.

Meanwhile, situation in the disputed territory continues to remain violent.

For the past two years, the region has witnessed a spike in gun battles between the security forces and the rebels, who either want freedom or a merger with Muslim-majority Pakistan.

New Delhi accuses Pakistan of sheltering anti-India rebels, a charge repeatedly denied by Islamabad.

Both India and Pakistan claim the whole of Kashmir territory and have fought two of their three wars over it.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018...mir-assembly-fresh-polls-181121161530575.html

 

[Dubious]

I thought PDF indians were chest thumping that the turn out rate was impressive and that it was all democratically voted...Apparently politics across the border isnt as settled as they display it to be!

 

[Quibbler]

I thought PDF indians were chest thumping that the turn out rate was impressive and that it was all democratically voted...Apparently politics across the border isnt as settled as they display it to be!

The problem is not voter turnout but both major political coalitions having almost equal seats.

 

[Osiris]

I thought PDF indians were chest thumping that the turn out rate was impressive and that it was all democratically voted...Apparently politics across the border isnt as settled as they display it to be!

What has turn out rate and due democratic process being followed got to do with anything here?

It was because the democratic process was followed, that no party got a majority.

 

[Dubious]

What has turn out rate and due democratic process being followed got to do with anything here?

It was because the democratic process was followed, that no party got a majority.

Yes and they couldnt produce a stable govt as per the voted candidates? What a waste of voting!

It is understandable that you being from Pakistan dont understand democracy. The problem is not voter turnout but both major political coalitions having almost equal seats. Alas you would understand the intricacies of a good political system as your political system is a puppet of your millitary.

It is understandable Indians dont understand English...I have highlighted alot of info for attention to what I meant...If a population votes you, you have the role to make it happen for the sake of the people's choosing you....Sorry I forgot I have to spell everything out for Indians on PDF...they really cant add 2 and 2!

dissolved the assembly on Wednesday, shortly after former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti staked claim to form the government by forming a "grand alliance" with two rival parties.

This shows that the people's mandate is revoked! They chose people from various party but someone didnt want an alliance of different thoughts sitting together!

 

[Osiris]

Yes and they couldnt produce a stable govt as per the voted candidates? What a waste of voting!

That is democracy, when due democratic process is followed, more often than not you end up with a weak coalition government than a strong single party government. Just like the one you have now.
Because in Decmocracy every gets the right to express their opinion, no matter their social, financial or religious standing .

 

[Dubious]

That is democracy, when due democratic process is followed, more often than not you end up with a weak coalition government than a strong single party government. Just like the one you have now.
Because in Decmocracy every gets the right to express their opinion, no matter their social, financial or religious standing .

Democracy and voters right to vote as well as the democratic vote needs to be respected instead of just dissolving the assembly they needed to think of the people but I guess that is alien to you guys, right?

 

[HalfMoon]

Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik dissolved the assembly on Wednesday, shortly after former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti staked claim to form the government by forming a "grand alliance" with two rival parties.

Mufti, whose People's Democratic Party (PDP) had 29 lawmakers in the 87-member assembly, claimed she had the support of the National Conference (NC), which had 15, and 12 from the Congress.


Mehbooba Mufti

✔@MehboobaMufti

Oddly enough our pleas fell on deaf ears. But who would have thought that the very idea of a grand coalition would give such jitters. 3/4
21:33 - 21 Nov 2018

PDP+NC+Congress could challenge this decision. Dissolving assembly when someone stakes claim to form the government does not bode well and sets a wrong precedent.

Minutes later, Sajad Lone of the People’s Conference (PC), posted on Twitter a letter he said he had sent to Malik, claiming he had the support of the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to form his government.



Sajad Lone@sajadlone
20:04 - 21 Nov 2018

But Governor Malik, in a statement, said "there is the impossibility of forming a stable government by the coming together of political parties with opposing political ideologies".

If coming together of PDP & NC is considered opposing ideologies, what should coming together of PDP & BJP called? Why different yard sticks?

 

[Osiris]

Democracy and voters right to vote as well as the democratic vote needs to be respected instead of just dissolving the assembly they needed to think of the people but I guess that is alien to you guys, right?

There rights are being respected, that is why new elections are being called, where they will get another chance to elect their leader.

Just because, we are a democracy, doesn't mean we will let anarchy flow.

Unlike Pakistan, where, when ever there is instability in the government. The army just takes over and becomes the law unto itself.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Sham elections ..

Indian State continues to argue that such elections are a substitute for the promised plebiscite ....

The United Nations Security Council stated in its resolution 91 dated March 30, 1951 that it would not consider elections held only in Indian administered Kashmir to be a substitute for a free and impartial plebiscite including the people of the entire state Jammu and Kashmir. The UN Resolution is still valid and effective


Resolution 91 (1951)
Concerning the India-Pakistan question submitted by the Representatives of
United Kingdom and United States and adopted by the Security Council on
March 30, 1951.
(Document No. S/2017/Rev. 1, dated the 30th March, 1951).
THE SECURITY COUNCIL,
Having received and noted the report of Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations Representative for
India and Pakistan on his mission initiated by the Security Council resolution 80 (1950) of March
14, 1950.

Observing that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted the provisions of the United
Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949,
and have re-affirmed their desire that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided
through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the
United Nations.

Observing that on 27 October, 1950, the General Council of the "All Jammu and Kashmir National
Conference" adopted a resolution recommending the convening of a Constituent Assembly for the
purpose of determining the "future shape and affiliations of the State of Jammu and Kashmir";
observing further from statements of responsible authorities that action is proposed to convene such
a Constituent Assembly and that the area from which such a Constituent Assembly would be elected
is only a part of the whole territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47
(1948) of 21 April 1948, 51(1948) of 3 June, 1948 and 80 (1950) of 14 March, 1950 and the
United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January,
1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with
the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite
conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.

Affirming that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of
the "All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference" and any action that Assembly might attempt to
take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof would not
constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle.

Declaring its belief that it is the duty of the Security Council in carrying out its primary responsibility
for the maintenance of international peace and security to aid the parties to reach an amicable
solution of the Kashmir dispute and that a prompt settlement of this dispute is of vital importance to
the maintenance of international peace and security.

Observing from Sir Owen Dixon's report that the main points of difference preventing agreement
between the parties were:

(a) The procedure for and the extent of demilitarisation of the State preparatory to the holding
of a plebiscite, and

(b) The degree of control over the exercise of the functions of Government in the State
necessary to ensure a free and fair plebiscite.

(1) Accepts, in compliance with his request, Sir Owen Dixon's resignation and expresses its
gratitude to Sir Owen Dixon's resignation and expresses its gratitude to Sir Owen for the great ability
and devotion with which he carried out his mission;

(2) Decides to appoint a United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in succession to Sir
Owen Dixon;

(3) Instructs the United Nations Representative to proceed to the sub-continent and, after
consultation with the Governments of India and Pakistan, to effect the demilitarisation of the State of
Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan
resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and, 5 January, 1949;

(4) Calls upon the parties to co-operate with the United Nations Representative to the fullest degree
in effecting the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

(5) Instructs the United Nations Representatives to report to the Security Council within three
months from the date of his arrival on the sub-continent; if at the time of this report, he has not
effected demilitarisation in accordance with paragraph three above, or obtained the agreement of the
parties to a plan for effecting such demilitarisation, the United Nations Representative shall report to
the Security Council those points of difference between the parties in regard to the interpretation and
execution of the agreed resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949, which he considers
must be resolved to enable such demilitarisation to be carried out;

(6) Calls upon the parties, in the event of their discussions with the United Nations Representative
failing in his opinion to result in full agreement, to accept arbitration upon all outstanding points of
difference reported by the United Nations representative in accordance with paragraph five above.
Such arbitration to be carried 'out by an arbitrator, or a panel of arbitrators, to be appointed by the
President of the International Court of Justice after consultation with the parties;

(7) Decides that the Military Observer Group shall continue to supervise the cease-fire in the State;

(8) Requests the Governments of India and Pakistan to ensure that their cement regarding the
cease-fire shall continue to be faithfully observed and calls them to take all possible measures to
ensure the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further
negotiations and to refrain from any likely to prejudice a just and peaceful settlement;

(9) Requests the Secretary-General to provide the United Nations Representative for India and
Pakistan with such services and facilities as may be necessary in carrying out the terms of this
resolution.

The Security Council voted on this Resolution on 30-3-51 with the following result:
In favour: Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Netherlands, Turkey, U.K. and U.S.A.
Against: None
Abstaining: India, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia

 

[Dubious]

PDP+NC+Congress could challenge this decision. Dissolving assembly when someone stakes claim to form the government does not bode well and sets a wrong precedent.

I still think it is disrespecting the vote and the wants of the majority

Why different yard sticks?

Not at all different...I am only opposing the abuse of voters mandate!

being from Pakistan

Unlike Pakistan

Stick to topic any more comparisons would result in a formal warning!

 

[HalfMoon]

Sham elections ..

Indian State continues to argue that such elections are a substitute for the promised plebiscite ....

The United Nations Security Council stated in its resolution 91 dated March 30, 1951 that it would not consider elections held only in Indian administered Kashmir to be a substitute for a free and impartial plebiscite including the people of the entire state Jammu and Kashmir. The UN Resolution is still valid and effective


Resolution 91 (1951)
Concerning the India-Pakistan question submitted by the Representatives of
United Kingdom and United States and adopted by the Security Council on
March 30, 1951.
(Document No. S/2017/Rev. 1, dated the 30th March, 1951).
THE SECURITY COUNCIL,
Having received and noted the report of Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations Representative for
India and Pakistan on his mission initiated by the Security Council resolution 80 (1950) of March
14, 1950.

Observing that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted the provisions of the United
Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949,
and have re-affirmed their desire that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided
through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the
United Nations.

Observing that on 27 October, 1950, the General Council of the "All Jammu and Kashmir National
Conference" adopted a resolution recommending the convening of a Constituent Assembly for the
purpose of determining the "future shape and affiliations of the State of Jammu and Kashmir";
observing further from statements of responsible authorities that action is proposed to convene such
a Constituent Assembly and that the area from which such a Constituent Assembly would be elected
is only a part of the whole territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47
(1948) of 21 April 1948, 51(1948) of 3 June, 1948 and 80 (1950) of 14 March, 1950 and the
United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January,
1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with
the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite
conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.

Affirming that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of
the "All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference" and any action that Assembly might attempt to
take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof would not
constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle.

Declaring its belief that it is the duty of the Security Council in carrying out its primary responsibility
for the maintenance of international peace and security to aid the parties to reach an amicable
solution of the Kashmir dispute and that a prompt settlement of this dispute is of vital importance to
the maintenance of international peace and security.

Observing from Sir Owen Dixon's report that the main points of difference preventing agreement
between the parties were:

(a) The procedure for and the extent of demilitarisation of the State preparatory to the holding
of a plebiscite, and

(b) The degree of control over the exercise of the functions of Government in the State
necessary to ensure a free and fair plebiscite.

(1) Accepts, in compliance with his request, Sir Owen Dixon's resignation and expresses its
gratitude to Sir Owen Dixon's resignation and expresses its gratitude to Sir Owen for the great ability
and devotion with which he carried out his mission;

(2) Decides to appoint a United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in succession to Sir
Owen Dixon;

(3) Instructs the United Nations Representative to proceed to the sub-continent and, after
consultation with the Governments of India and Pakistan, to effect the demilitarisation of the State of
Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan
resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and, 5 January, 1949;

(4) Calls upon the parties to co-operate with the United Nations Representative to the fullest degree
in effecting the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

(5) Instructs the United Nations Representatives to report to the Security Council within three
months from the date of his arrival on the sub-continent; if at the time of this report, he has not
effected demilitarisation in accordance with paragraph three above, or obtained the agreement of the
parties to a plan for effecting such demilitarisation, the United Nations Representative shall report to
the Security Council those points of difference between the parties in regard to the interpretation and
execution of the agreed resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949, which he considers
must be resolved to enable such demilitarisation to be carried out;

(6) Calls upon the parties, in the event of their discussions with the United Nations Representative
failing in his opinion to result in full agreement, to accept arbitration upon all outstanding points of
difference reported by the United Nations representative in accordance with paragraph five above.
Such arbitration to be carried 'out by an arbitrator, or a panel of arbitrators, to be appointed by the
President of the International Court of Justice after consultation with the parties;

(7) Decides that the Military Observer Group shall continue to supervise the cease-fire in the State;

(8) Requests the Governments of India and Pakistan to ensure that their cement regarding the
cease-fire shall continue to be faithfully observed and calls them to take all possible measures to
ensure the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further
negotiations and to refrain from any likely to prejudice a just and peaceful settlement;

(9) Requests the Secretary-General to provide the United Nations Representative for India and
Pakistan with such services and facilities as may be necessary in carrying out the terms of this
resolution.

The Security Council voted on this Resolution on 30-3-51 with the following result:
In favour: Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Netherlands, Turkey, U.K. and U.S.A.
Against: None
Abstaining: India, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia

Two words - Simla Agreement

 

[M. Sarmad]

Two words - Simla Agreement

A few more-
Simla Agreement Does Not (and cannot) supersede UN Resolutions

 

[HalfMoon]

A few more-
Simla Agreement Does Not (and cannot) supersede UN Resolutions

There was an agreement between ZAB & Indira to convert LOC as IB as part of the Simla Agreement. This was the reason why neither India nor Pakistan crossed LOC during Kargil. Whether one likes it or not, Whether one acknowledges it or not, LOC has been converted into IB.

 

[M. Sarmad]

There was an agreement between ZAB & Indira to convert LOC as IB as part of the Simla Agreement. .

This is a baseless assertion.
The Cease-Fire line was redesignated as LOC after Simla Agreement
Had there been an agreement between ZAB and Indira, they would have declared it IB then