LEADER ARTICLE
Observers an Asset in Kashmir

Against the background of the forthcoming elections in Jammu and Kashmir and their attendant fallout on militancy, which the recent attacks in Jammu and Pahalgam have highlighted, chief election commissioner J M Lyngdoh’s promise of free and fair elections in the state assumes added significance.
Although many of the allegations of rigging are politically motivated, in Kashmir’s case there is something certainly amiss.
In June 1996, when the parliamentary elections were held in J&K, Farooq Abdullah’s National Conference had boycotted them on the ground of his autonomy demand. After the elections, he alleged massive rigging. But the same Mr Abdullah had no qualms in participating in the assembly elections held only three months later in September.
The then CEC, T N Seshan, was characteristically forthright: “I cannot unequivocally say there was no coercion... Given various factors, including the neighbouring country’s determination to disrupt the elections, we have conducted as good an election under the circumstances.� Since the ground realities remain the same now as they were in 1996, Mr Lyngdoh probably would not be able to do the job any better.
Still, there are two elements in Mr Lyngdoh’s promise that warrant notice — one, his reference to foreign observers, and two, his promise to use the security forces most sparingly. So far as the first is concerned he has not deviated an inch from the statute book. About the second, let the facts speak. If it is not the Special Task Force, is it the J&K police alone which is expected to do the job? There again is a problem. It may be recalled that in 1981, the EC had nullified two by-elections in Garhwal on the ground that there was a massive deployment of police.
To ensure free polling, besides taking other steps, the EC sends election observers who belong to the IAS and other Central services, designated either as general observers or as expenditure observers. There are also some special observers in sensitive constituencies. In the 1999 general election, 1,979 such observers were deployed. Since the reports of these observers are not in the public domain, one does not really know how efficient the system is. But since the EC itself has a high credibility rating, it is expected to take these reports seriously. According to a survey conducted in 1996 by the Delhi-based Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, the EC had the maximum popular trust while the police and bureaucracy the least. Tragically the EC has to depend on the latter.
The role of election observers is confined to the observance of the moral code of conduct and statutory regulations about spending by candidates. But rigging is a complex game that includes many omissions and commissions by the state, or the dominant political forces, both before and on the day of the election, which the election observers can barely grapple with. Can international observers plug these holes? No. They would have the same handicaps as domestic observers have. International observation works where the democratic institutions are yet to gain people’s trust. In Russia it is legally formalised. In 1990s, the election commission of Sri Lanka invited international observers to restore the confidence of people in its electoral system, which had undergone massive threats under the JVP insurgency. Nothing of that sort has happened in India. In any case, the EC has a tradition of inviting foreign observers. Even foreign embassy officials are issued passes to visit polling booths. But all these categories do not strictly connote international observers.
In Kashmir, it is the EC itself which is in the dock. There is no doubt that the EC would do the job fairly but some misgivings would surely persist. There is an old adage that ‘it is not enough to be honest, it is equally important to appear honest’. Therein lies the EC’s challenge as well as opportunity. Since the problem of Kashmir has ramifications for India’s nation-building, diplomacy and territorial integrity, and since a political space would have to be created for all those who are opposed to the ruling clique there, it would be politically wise to invite international observers to watch the elections by providing them with all facilities. There are many professional groups in the world doing the job. If the EC is convinced that it would ensure a free and fair poll, a certificate from these observers could be a bonus.
Perhaps their presence would make the 23-member Hurriyat Conference give up its insistence on boycotting the polls. There are straws in the wind pointing to some dents in its otherwise recalcitrant stand. Early this year, it proposed elections to be held in both J&K and PoK to choose representatives for an India-Pakistan-Kashmir dialogue, adding that they should be under the aegis of an independent commission consisting of both Indian and Pakistani human rights champions. But both India and Pakistan ignored it. It is in India’s interest to fine-tune the idea and invite the Hurriyat Conference to partake in the assembly election. The battle for Kashmir has to be fought politically.
(The author is director, Indian Council of Social Research, New Delhi)