Why rigging and violence in Pakistani Kashmir?

Elections are currently being held in Pakistani-administered Kashmir (POK), and their results have already become controversial at the very first stage. Gilgit-Baltistan, which is essentially also part of Kashmir, held elections recently. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari’s Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) won there, while the Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party also received some seats, and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) won fewer seats. Despite this, the PML-N accepted the results and fully cooperated in the formation of the government.

In the first phase of elections in Mirpur, however, the PML-N won nine seats, while Bilawal’s PPP secured four. Despite winning four seats, the PPP immediately began raising allegations of rigging.

Even more painful is the fact that these elections have been marked by bloodshed. During clashes surrounding the long march of the banned Awami Action Party, one Rangers personnel was killed and five police officers were confirmed injured. The Awami Action Committee, meanwhile, claims that its protesters came under firing, resulting in the deaths of 14 of its workers.

The number of people killed or injured from the Awami Action Committee has not been officially confirmed. However, if government personnel have been killed and injured, it is reasonable to assume that protesters also suffered casualties.

The question now is what should be made of the rigging allegations being levelled by the PPP and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. If one side refuses to accept the election results and uses such harsh language against the other side, could the situation not deteriorate further?

From a strategic perspective, it would have been better to hold the entire election on a single day. The total number of voters is not so large that the process needed to be stretched out in this manner. The second phase is scheduled for August 2, followed by the third phase on August 10, as if this were a battlefield.

Bilawal should also think beyond repeatedly raising the issue of rigging. At present, his own party is in power in Kashmir. The deputy commissioners, assistant commissioners and other officials were appointed by the ruling party. So who has greater opportunities to influence elections—the ruling party or the opposition?

Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz conducted an effective election campaign during the final days. However, the writer believes it was not befitting of a three-time elected Pakistani prime minister to say words to the effect of: “I will ask my brother Shehbaz Sharif to make me the prime minister of Kashmir, and I will solve all its problems.”

Instead, he should have said that whichever member from their party is elected to the assembly, he and his party would fully cooperate with that representative in resolving the problems of the people of Kashmir.

Maryam Nawaz also sent air-conditioned buses for the people of Kashmir, but they were stopped on the instructions of the Election Commission. Nevertheless, the message reached the people of Kashmir that the PML-N was in a position to do something to address their deprivation. This thinking could help the PML-N achieve further success in the next two phases as well.

But the real decisions, after all, remain in the hands of those who possess the power and influence.

In our country, writing and speaking the truth has become extremely difficult. There is immense pressure not only from powerful circles but also from violent and extremist mindsets. Their proxies can be found roaming freely in the streets.

In normal states, something that would be considered ordinary or insignificant was used as a pretext to shut down the country’s largest media organisation, Geo, for two weeks. This alone gives an idea of the pressure facing the Jang newspaper and the national media.

For this reason, the writer says he tries to avoid writing about national and domestic affairs and mostly focuses on international issues. Even there, however, he has to be careful not to write anything critical of China, Iran or certain other countries. Likewise, he says he cannot write anything supportive of India, Israel or certain other countries that might highlight a positive aspect or truth about them.

This, he says, is the pressure he faces every moment.

When it comes to Indian-administered Kashmir, we can freely write and speak about alleged government abuses without facing difficulty or objection. We can exaggerate as much as we want and add as much colour as we like. The violent militants there are portrayed as victims under all circumstances.

But when it comes to our own Kashmir, we are expected to portray the movement for public rights as anti-state, Indian-sponsored and terrorist, regardless of how strongly its members insist that they are simply demanding rights for ordinary people.

The organisation is not even named after any military or jihadist group. It is called the Jammu and Kashmir Joint Action Committee. It consists of local Kashmiri traders, transporters, workers, students and lawyers. These are ordinary citizens of the region.

They demand rights for ordinary Kashmiris. They speak against rising inflation and call for reductions in the prices of wheat and flour. They oppose excessive privileges for the elite, misuse of public resources and corruption. They also demand an end to what they consider unjust taxes.

Despite this, the organisation has not only been banned, but its workers have allegedly been arrested and subjected to violence in ways that are deeply disturbing.

While witnessing all this, writers like us sometimes adopt deliberate ignorance and tell the members of the Awami Action Committee: “You make allegations against our sacred institutions. How could they possibly commit excesses against you?”

We are told that these institutions are the reason this small part of Kashmir remains with us. We are also told that they have kept the Kashmir issue alive so that the entire region can eventually be recovered. Therefore, according to this argument, their praise and appreciation are justified.

If, according to protesters, 30 or 35 people have so far been killed and around 300 injured during demonstrations, then we are also told to consider how many of our security personnel have been killed during clashes caused by the protests.

According to figures collected by the writer, four people were killed during the initial electricity-related protests—three demonstrators and one soldier. More than 100 people were injured.

During protests over the 12 refugee seats and efforts to reopen roads, six protesters, two security personnel and one police officer were reportedly killed.

On July 14 alone, nine deaths were reportedly confirmed, while the number of injured was in the hundreds.

Different figures have been presented by both sides, but one fact is clear: the bloodshed that we used to condemn in Indian-administered Kashmir is now taking place in our own Kashmir.

Recently, millions of young people took to the streets in major Indian cities. They also clashed with police, but not a single person was killed. Eventually, those young people secured their demands and went home.

Why, then, is protest considered such a serious crime here that dozens of people have to die and hundreds are injured, yet protesters continue to cry out on the streets or fill the prisons without getting their legitimate demands accepted?

Instead, their organisation has been banned and declared unlawful.

The truth is that the Awami Action Committee’s demand concerning the 12 allegedly illegitimate seats is entirely justified, according to the writer. Those seats, he argues, do not truly represent the people living in Kashmir. Rather, they are a tried and tested mechanism for undermining their electoral choices.

But the question remains: who will bell the cat?

If the people responsible for the existing system are themselves present in the assembly, how can the necessary amendment be made?

The credibility of these elections has certainly been damaged. According to one report, only around one-quarter of eligible voters cast their ballots because two major groups, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the Joint Awami Action Committee, boycotted the elections.

The Awami Action Committee had also been staging a sit-in in Rawalakot for several days. Maintaining such a prolonged protest in hot weather and amid worsening circumstances was not easy.

Perhaps for this reason, the committee’s leadership appeared willing to compromise during negotiations with the government. At least for the time being, it reportedly backed away from its major demand concerning the 12 allegedly illegitimate seats.

The committee said that if cases registered against its members were withdrawn and detained workers were released, it would end the sit-in.

Even this demand was rejected. Instead, the establishment reportedly described the protesters as traitors, anti-state elements and terrorists.

Prime Minister’s Adviser Rana Sanaullah went so far as to say that trained militants were currently fighting against the government and state in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

This immediately raised an important question: who had trained these militants?

Perhaps this was one reason why action was taken when members of the Awami Action Committee attempted to march from Rawalakot towards Muzaffarabad. Reports claimed that live ammunition was used against them and that casualties were high.

One report said the father of an Air Force squadron leader from Rawalakot was also killed during the committee’s march.

Dr Usama Jameel, a talented young PhD scholar at Islamabad’s Jinnah University, was also reportedly killed during the violence.

The Action Committee should also avoid taking the law into its own hands and show greater restraint. It should recognise that this is not a democracy where protests are necessarily praised or welcomed.

At the same time, it must be remembered that violence always gives birth to more violence.