Interpreting the Kashmiri Vote - an Opinion| The Hindu 13/12/14

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This was not a personal attack but a way of stating an old adage: "Opinions are like Assholes, everybody has one". There is no need to care about what some dye in red leftist has to say about a political question.

An opinion without any rational arguments to support it is different from an opinion that merely states "I believe X is true" - your comment below is an example of the latter, whereas the author has offered an opinion backed up by rational arguments.

Everyone know the real reason of high turnout, but only few would accept it. I have stated my position in earlier post.

So, again, where and why do you disagree with the author?

 

[Irfan Baloch]

While essentially an opinion, the part I found most interesting was thing and sort of sets the pace for the entire writeup.

. In 1987, followed by a popular uprising and full-fledged guerrilla warfare against India, there was a record voter turnout of 74.9 per cent. During the height of militancy and anti-India sentiments, in 1996, 53.92 per cent voted. In 2008, preceded by protracted anti-India protests, the turnout was 61.49 per cent. This was followed by the pro-azaadi protests of 2010. Therefore, concluding that huge participation in an election as an absolute verdict on the political will of Kashmiris is not only reductive but renders the act ahistorical.

Hence, voter turnout has had little impact on the freedom struggle as such and more to do with the change in tactics.
What the entire write-up does contend in an implicit tangent if you will...

there was also one occasion during the 80s when there was a complete rejection of election and only one voted was cast.

there was a program on door durshan whose clip I saw back in the 80s where the Indian host laughed at the guy from Farooq Abdullah group over that when he admitted only one vote was cast in Srinagar. not sure if the program was Aap ki Adalat or something but its like 30 + year old thing and I doubt if that will be uploaded by door durshan to facilitate us Pakistanis

I agree that this vote doesn't mean Kashmiri submission to Indian rule otherwise looking at 70+% turnout should mean India doesn't need over a million army + paramilitary personnel in the valley including the settled areas (not just the borders).

question is, if say Huriyaat conference is allowed to openly take part in election and then wins to form the government, would it be allowed by the biggest democracy to hold Scotland like referendum?
I dont think so.
Indian policy makers dont feel the need for that specially when Pakistan is very week due to political unrest and the insurgency. they would rather add more misery to it by instigating trouble via missions in Afghanistan.

by the way I wonder how United nations general secretary views this "high turn out" when he mentioned Kashmir? he definitely has a different view than the popular Indian narrative.

 

[MilSpec]

While essentially an opinion, the part I found most interesting was thing and sort of sets the pace for the entire writeup.

. In 1987, followed by a popular uprising and full-fledged guerrilla warfare against India, there was a record voter turnout of 74.9 per cent. During the height of militancy and anti-India sentiments, in 1996, 53.92 per cent voted. In 2008, preceded by protracted anti-India protests, the turnout was 61.49 per cent. This was followed by the pro-azaadi protests of 2010. Therefore, concluding that huge participation in an election as an absolute verdict on the political will of Kashmiris is not only reductive but renders the act ahistorical.

Hence, voter turnout has had little impact on the freedom struggle as such and more to do with the change in tactics.
What the entire write-up does contend in an implicit tangent if you will.. is that Pakistan or India's Kashmir ideals vis-a-vis each other are less on the minds of the Kashmiris when compared to their own goals and aspiration.
.

Or what if the same voter turnout argument is construed slightly differently, The record turnout of 74.9% after 87 gurrella warfare was a representation of resolve of the kashmiri people disassociating themselves from the foriegn backed insurgency which maligned the populace of the entire state.

Higher voter turnouts during anti india rallies and terror acts is the actual representation of kashmiris vehemently dis owning the anti India franchise which is a marginal community with very little support and thus has to resort to kidnapping, bombings, mutilations, etc.... Much like the marginal groups found under the misrepresented term of Islamic extremism in the middle east?

 

[Irfan Baloch]

This was not a personal attack but a way of stating an old adage: "Opinions are like Assholes, everybody has one".

Everyone know the real reason of high turnout,

what is your opinion about the high turnout then?

 

[Srinivas]

The author is interpreting the high voter turn out in his own way which is not exactly the truth.
Kashmiris believed in Indian Democracy and also believed that the leaders whom they choose will bring development to their region within the frame work of Indian Constitution.

People of Kashmir valley also neglected the Separatists calls to shun the polls, this is a defeat to the forces which are trying to create anarchy and blood shed in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

This election is a right step in Integrating J and K into Indian union and also make the region developed and peaceful.

 

[rockstarIN]

One must note that the separatists always call for poll boycott. This time also there is no difference and people just ignored it.

Indian laws give it's citizens enough freedom at state level for self rule. Few stuff like foreign policy and defence is handled by central govt. And the people of kashmir started under standing the same.

 

[anonymus]

what is your opinion about the high turnout then?

1. Prevent a Hindu from becoming CM.

2. Ensure that Art 370 is not scraped by J&K Government.

 

[chhota bheem]

Low turn out amounts to rejection of India and high turnout means nothing,nice logic.

Any way i dont care ,all i want is better roads ,infra,schools,jobs and living standards to all our brothers in the valley ,and any threat of loosing all that should make the silent majority to come out and kick the vocal minority shouting Independence.

 

[OrionHunter]

The vote is for effective local governance that will deliver social services. The ballot is being used to resolve day-to-day problems, to address unemployment, towards improved infrastructure like roads, schools, health systems and to fulfil basic needs like food security, water and electricity.

If Kashmir is given independence as some want then from who and how will the Kashmiris get the funds to address unemployment, improve infrastructure like roads, schools, health systems and to fulfill basic needs like food security, water and electricity? All this costs money.

For the author's info, India doles out an average of Rs 50,000 crores every year towards subsidies, aids, grants and infrastructure in Kashmir without which Kashmir will collapse like a house of cards. Without an industry worth the name, just depending on apples, saffron, tourism and carpets won't fetch even fraction of what it's getting from the central government.

Will Pakistan be able to dish out this huge amount to an 'independent Kashmir'? Not a chance! Probably China would, but with a quid pro quo that Kashmir becomes an autonomous region of China like the TAR, with a new name - KAR ( Kashmir Autonomous Region) of China!! Another Xinjiang in the making?

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is a pathetic and tired argument that has been put forward many times before, that an action, an overt actioern means something other than what it might ordinarily mean, because the situation in which it is taken is complex and does not permit ordinary, common-sense interpretations to be made.

Assume for a moment that people respond at two levels: at one level they wish to see peace and quiet, and normal, ordinary administration that allows people to eat three square meals a day, provides them clothing and keeps them sheltered from the open. Administration that keeps the roads open and navigable, that provides health care in both minor and major illnesses, that enables one's children to be educated to the limits of one's desires and permits them to lead fulfilling lives, an administration that allows social activity and the sharing of the benefits of peace among all.

Assume that they also have a different level of existence, or of belief, or of demonstrable faith in moulding their own destinies, in achieving self-rule and a belief in that self-rule ,beyond what their day to day needs dictate.

Why, if I may ask those who are fixated on the issue, is it legitimate for the separatist leadership to proclaim from the rooftops and from every Pakistani source of news and of views that a low turnout is a vote for separatism, but illegitimate for any neutral observer to come to the opposite conclusion in the case of a high turnout?

Hypocrisy has its limits, and the pushing of a communal agenda is well past its relevance. Today's tragic events in Pakistan itself show that.

===================================================================

I just saw post #23 which says the identical thing.

 

[Ammyy]

Well all these articles are just excuse because of unexpected rise of people of J&K in Indian democracy.
Those who hate Indian democracy should decide about real cause they are changing their stand every day.

First we seen article based that they are voting because of fear of Modi or BJP, now some new picture this article want to show.

 

[SQ8]

Why, if I may ask those who are fixated on the issue, is it legitimate for the separatist leadership to proclaim from the rooftops and from every Pakistani source of news and of views that a low turnout is a vote for separatism, but illegitimate for any neutral observer to come to the opposite conclusion in the case of a high turnout?

Hypocrisy has its limits, and the pushing of a communal agenda is well past its relevance. Today's tragic events in Pakistan itself show that.

===================================================================

I just saw post #23 which says the identical thing.

For starters, this is NOT from a Pakistani source huzoor.Rather a very Indian one.In addition, the people mentioned and the author herself are not fictitious(as is with propaganda sources) but VERY well known to moi. These people believe exactly in the following,

Assume for a moment that people respond at two levels: at one level they wish to see peace and quiet, and normal, ordinary administration that allows people to eat three square meals a day, provides them clothing and keeps them sheltered from the open. Administration that keeps the roads open and navigable, that provides health care in both minor and major illnesses, that enables one's children to be educated to the limits of one's desires and permits them to lead fulfilling lives, an administration that allows social activity and the sharing of the benefits of peace among all

And at the same time in the following

Assume that they also have a different level of existence, or of belief, or of demonstrable faith in moulding their own destinies, in achieving self-rule and a belief in that self-rule ,beyond what their day to day needs dictate.

Do you wish to take a very recent example of where the EXACT is true and YET there was recently a referendum held which nearly granted the location( part of a union much much older than India) independence? Let me give you a hint.. Kilts.