Opening of Democratic Space in Kashmir and other take aways from DDC Elections in Jammu and Kashmir - Rekha Chowdhary

The District Development Council (DDC) election  in Jammu and Kashmir, that was held in the month of November-December attracted much national attention. Being the first political exercise  after the abrogation of the special constitutional status and reorganisation of the state of J&K, it had significance beyond its ‘district’ level status. It was therefore a keenly watched exercise, as much for the process (the participation and the voter turnout) as for its outcome.

The DDC, for Jammu and Kashmir, is a rehash of the District Development Board (DDB) as it existed as the third layer of Panchayat under the Jammu and Kashmir Panchayati Raj Act, 1989.  The DDB was almost an administrative extension of government as it was heavily represented by the government functionaries. While the District Development Commissioner was the chief executive of the District Board, the Chairman was nominated by the government. Generally the Chief Minister or a Cabinet Minister chaired the meetings of the Board.  Among other members of the Board included the Chairmen of the Block Development Councils and the Town Area Committees, it did not have any component of directly elected members other than the local MLAs and MPs.

The DDC, on the other hand is a directly elected body comprised of 14 members with a Chairman and Vice-Chairman to be elected by these members from among themselves. In all, there are 20 districts in the UT, 10 each in Jammu and Kashmir Division and in all there were 280 DDC constituencies, for which eight-phased election was organised.

The elections from the very beginning reflected high stakes for the BJP as well as for the Kashmir based mainstream parties which had come together to form an Alliance. This Alliance known as People’s Alliance for Gupkar Declaration (PAGD) was actually formed prior to the announcement of the DDC election. This Alliance, comprised of the NC, PDP, People’s Conference, CPM, Awami National Conference and Jammu Kashmir People’s Movement (JKPM), sought to fight for the restoration of the pre-August 2019 position of the state.

Though there was an impression that the PAGD parties might boycott the DDC election, however, these parties facing the situation of oblivion, in case they boycotted, not only took the decision to participate in the election but also to contest it jointly as one unit. This decision of the PAGD changed the very prospect of the election and made it almost bi-polar election between BJP on the one hand and PAGD on the other. Irrespective of the fact that there were other parties like the Congress and Panthers Party also in fray, the main competition remained between the BJP and the PAGD. .

The stakes were therefore high. For the BJP which had been claiming that the August 2019 decision had ushered in a new era in this erstwhile state and that there was an overwhelming positive response to the changes within Jammu and Kashmir - this was the time to prove its claims. Anything less than an impressive victory for this party, at least in its core constituency in Jammu region, would have created difficulties for this party.

Stakes were equally high for PAGD parties. Facing existential crisis since the August 2019 changes,  the election was important not only for their future existence but also for the fact that they were opposing the August 2019 changes. If they could not perform well in this election, not only they would be completely marginalised but they would lose the moral basis to speak for people.

The Process and Outcome

In the end, the DDC elections were hailed as the victory of democratic process. The electoral process per se served the very important purpose of opening of the ‘political’ space that had gone under since August 2019. For the mainstream political parties, there was a situation of political impasse. To begin with most of the political leaders were detained and even after they were released, they were not confident that they could confront the people. As Farooq Abdullah and Omar Abdullah in their interviews after their release from detention stated, there was a total sense of apathy towards the mainstream politics in Kashmir. The DDC election was almost forced on these parties. And once they took the decision to contest the election and contest it jointly , the political space was animated.

A reasonable voter turnout was recorded. With the exception of few districts in South Kashmir which have been infested by militancy and where there was very massive separatist upsurge in 2016, the voter turnout was generally above 40% (the exception being Srinagar district which registered 35.3% voter turnout). North Kashmir had still higher voter turnout with some districts recording more than 50% voter turnout. (In South Kashmir, the voter turnout was lowest in Pulwama (7.4%).  Shopian also had  a low turnout of 17.5%. For Anantnag and Kulgam, it was relatively better - 27.5% and 28.9% respectively).

Like the 2014 Assembly election, it was the resolve of the BJP to gain entry in Kashmir, that animated the political space. A reasonable voter turnout was assured to minimise the possibility of the BJP candidates winning. Even so the voter turnout in Kashmir was quite less than the voter turnout in Jammu region. This ultimately had the impact on the respective vote share of the parties. While the Jammu based parties had larger voter share due to high voter turnout, the Kashmir-based parties had lower vote share.

The result of the election reflected the complex reality of Jammu and Kashmir and its division along the regional and religious lines. Like the 2014 Assembly elections - there were two different winning trends - in Kashmir the PAGD parties were leading with 84/138 seats (result for two seats was deferred) and in Jammu the BJP was leading with 72/140 seats. However, cutting across the regional lines, the PAGD was able to get 26 seats in Jammu region as well. BJP meanwhile succeeded in getting 3 seats in Kashmir region. 

The results as these were projected reflected a win-win position both for the BJP and the PAGD. BJP claimed its victory in the election by declaring that it had registered its victory in the largest number of seats - its claim was based on the individual performance of parties and its declaration that its score of 75 was highest compared to score of any other party that had contested the election - higher than the 67 of NC, 35 of Congress, 29 of PDP, 8 of People’s Conference, 5 of CPM. BJP also claimed that it had got the largest share of votes in the whole UT. The PAGD meanwhile claimed that since the Alliance parties had contested the election as one unit against the BJP, its score of 110 was the highest.

Irrespective of these competing claims, one thing that clearly emerged in the elections was this - the Kashmir-based mainstream parties particularly the NC, PDP and even the PC - cannot be wished away. That these parties are rooted in Kashmir and continue to remain relevant. The National Conference which on its own had bagged 42 seats in Kashmir region and 25 seats in Jammu region - clearly made a statement through this election - that despite all the odds, the party is alive and kicking and still holds a substantial base not only in Kashmir region but also in Jammu. This actually emerged as the only party that had its presence in almost all the districts of the UT. Except two districts in Jammu region, it had succeeded in having its presence in as many as 18 DDCs. In Jammu region, in fact, this party emerged as the largest party after the BJP with its 25 seats.

The performance of PDP was not as good, but given the challenges that this party has been faced with since 2018, its victory in 27 seats (26 in Kashmir and one in Jammu) was quite satisfactory for the party. After the collapse of its government in 2018, it has been facing the internal party crisis with senior and influential leaders leaving the party. The very emergence of the Apni Party, is an example. It is comprised of many of the deserters from the PDP.

BJP’s performance, when seen from the perspective of its core constituency in Jammu region, has been quite good. Despite the fact that there has been sufficient restlessness in Jammu region vis-a-vis the changes that have been introduced after the reorganisation of the state, particularly in relation to the Domicile law, job policy as well as the land policy - the party has certainly performed very well. It has almost a full control over the four predominantly Hindu-populated districts of Jammu, Samba, Kathua and Udhampur and it has performed quite well in various other mixed population districts. On the whole one can see that the Hindu votes in Jammu region (not only in predominantly Hindu districts but also in districts of mixed population) have been cast substantially in favour of this party. Additionally, BJP has succeeded in winning three seats in Kashmir region. This is a first for the party. Though the total number of votes polled in the constituencies where it has won, is not very large, but it has certainly boosted the morale of the party and made it more ambitious about its ‘Mission Kashmir’.

Like the 2014 Assembly election, the fragmented political response in Jammu and Kashmir indicates serious regional and religious polarisation. The chasm that already existed between Kashmir and Jammu regions - seems to have no way of getting reduced. The political divergence that existed around the special constitutional status and other issues fundamental to the state - continues to influence the political responses of the people of two regions. Though in the post-August 2019 situation, there seemed to have developed common issues - related to protection of the rights of residents of the former state; the employment issue; the land policy and most importantly, the issue of restoration of the Statehood - in the absence of any political bridges between the two regions - the political divergence continues to remain as the reality of the UT.

The most important takeaway from the DDC election for the trouble torn Jammu and Kashmir is the revival of political process and opening of some democratic space.  The challenge of democracy, however, is massive and much will depend on what is invested in this little space that has opened up in Kashmir. The reality of separatism in Kashmir cannot be negated. It is a fact that there has been no organised separatist activity since August 2019. But it is also a fact that the mainstream politics in Kashmir continues to face the challenge of separatism. To meet that challenge, it is very important to strengthen the democratic space. The minimum that is required is a level play field for the mainstream parties and the election for the Legislative Assembly. However, even after the Legislative Assembly of UT is formed, it may not provide the best political environment for democracy to enrich itself.The most important requirement for the democracy to assert itself in Jammu and Kashmir is the restoration of the statehood.