Elections in J&K can’t resolve deeper structural and political grievances of people

Elections in J&K can’t resolve deeper structural and political grievances of people



“The absence of dialogue in J&K reflects a broader pattern in conflict zones where electoral processes are prioritized over substantive engagement. Comparative experiences from Northern Ireland and South Africa offer valuable lessons.”


Mehr un Nisa

Elections are often regarded as the cornerstone of democracy, offering a mechanism for expressing the collective will. Yet, in regions like J&K, elections alone cannot resolve deeper structural and political grievances. While the recently concluded elections were described as free and fair, with significant participation, they must be analyzed within the broader historical and political context.


The abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019 marked a watershed moment in J&K’s history, fundamentally altering its constitutional status. For some, the elections symbolize a return to normalcy and an endorsement of the central government’s decision to revoke the region’s special autonomy. For others, they are a manifestation of dissent and resilience against perceived impositions. This dichotomy reflects the broader paradox of elections in conflict zones: they provide a semblance of legitimacy while often failing to address the underlying causes of alienation.


From an international relations perspective, the unilateral abrogation of Article 370 raises critical questions about constitutionalism and the principle of consent. Autonomy arrangements, like those J&K previously enjoyed, are a hallmark of managing multi-ethnic or multi-national states. In J&K’s case, the central government’s actions represent a departure from the principles of federalism and constitutional consent.


By downgrading the region from statehood to Union Territories and bypassing the state legislature, the Indian Parliament disrupted a long-standing constitutional arrangement. This creates a “constitutional anomaly.” Such actions undermine the legitimacy of democratic institutions, both domestically and internationally, inviting criticism about India’s adherence to democratic norms in its most sensitive region.


Development is often invoked as a panacea for political grievances, particularly in conflict-affected regions. However, economic progress cannot be a substitute for political rights and dignity. The international community has witnessed similar dynamics in other contested regions, such as Palestine and Tibet, where economic initiatives have been employed to pacify political dissent.


In J&K, development discourse must be critically examined. On several socio-economic indicators, including literacy and social development, J&K was historically ahead of many Indian states even before the abrogation of Article 370. This raises the question: can economic development alone resolve a conflict rooted in identity, autonomy, and historical grievances? The answer in acknowledging that while governance and economic progress are essential, they cannot overshadow political rights and self-determination.


J&K occupies a unique position in international relations as a region with unresolved questions of self-determination. The principle of self-determination, enshrined in the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed in several international treaties, remains a contentious issue in Kashmir. While India views the region as an integral part of its sovereign territory, Pakistan and sections of the Kashmiri population contest this narrative.


The international community’s response to the Kashmir issue has been largely muted, constrained by geopolitical considerations and the prioritization of bilateralism in India-Pakistan relations. However, the abrogation of Article 370 and the subsequent elections demand a re-examination of these dynamics. From a normative perspective, the dismantling of J&K’s autonomy challenges the principles of federalism, minority rights, and regional self-governance, principles that are integral to modern democratic states.


The absence of dialogue in J&K reflects a broader pattern in conflict zones where electoral processes are prioritized over substantive engagement. Comparative experiences from Northern Ireland and South Africa offer valuable lessons. The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, for instance, succeeded because it recognized the importance of inclusive dialogue, power-sharing, and addressing historical injustices. Similarly, South Africa’s transition from apartheid was marked by a commitment to reconciliation through mechanisms like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.


In J&K, a similar approach is imperative. This involves engaging with mainstream political actors reaching out to disenfranchised groups, including separatist factions and civil society. Electoral victories will remain hollow failing to translate into long-term stability and peace without such engagement. The elections in J&K also have significant implications for South Asia’s geopolitics. The region remains a flashpoint in India-Pakistan relations, with the potential to escalate into broader conflicts. The abrogation of Article 370 and subsequent developments have further strained bilateral ties, complicating any prospects for dialogue.


The elections in J&K are an important democratic exercise, but cannot be viewed in isolation. They are part of a broader narrative involving constitutionalism, autonomy, human rights, and geopolitical stability. For India, the path forward must involve a commitment to constitutional integrity, inclusive dialogue, and reconciliation. The international community demands a more nuanced engagement that balances respect for sovereignty with advocacy for human rights and democratic principles. Only through such a comprehensive approach can the aspirations of the people of J&K be genuinely addressed, paving the way for sustainable peace and stability in the region.


(*The author is head of the research and human rights department of the Islamabad-based think tank Kashmir Institute of International Relations (KIIR) and can be contacted at: mehr_dua@yahoo.com)

(This news article has been updated with some corrections)

Facebook Twitter

Related Detail