SHADAB PEERZADA
The political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) has long been marred by cynicism and disillusionment, shaped by a series of betrayals and failures that have eroded public trust in political institutions. The region’s complex history, characterized by political maneuvering, corruption, and broken promises, has fostered a pervasive sense of skepticism among its residents. Jammu and Kashmir’s political cynicism has roots that trace back to the early 20th century, but it gained significant traction in the post-independence era. The state, with its unique political and cultural identity, has faced a series of contentious events and decisions that have shaped its current political climate. The region’s special status under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, granted in 1947, and its subsequent abrogation in 2019 are central to understanding the present-day political cynicism. The political instability in Jammu and Kashmir has been significantly marked by the frequent toppling of its Assembly governments and dismissals of elected leaders.
The initial betrayal can be traced to the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India in 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh, the then ruler of J&K, initially sought to remain independent but chose to accede to India amidst the invasion of tribal militias from Pakistan. This decision, which was supposed to be temporary according to the Maharaja, eventually became permanent, creating an international conflict between two neighbors India and Pakistan leading to four wars. In the 1950s, the political landscape of J&K was dominated by the National Conference (NC) led by Sheikh Abdullah. Abdullah, who was initially hailed as a champion of the people’s rights, faced accusations of autocratic governance and corruption. His government’s failure to address economic grievances and its perceived nepotism contributed to growing disillusionment. In 1953, Abdullah’s dismissal by the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru under the guise of a conspiracy to secede was seen as a political betrayal. This event deepened the rift between the people and the Indian government. Sheikh Abdullah’s shift from advocating for a plebiscite to accepting the position of Chief Minister is often viewed in Kashmir as a sign of political opportunism, leading to a significant loss of trust among the people. The Indra-Sheikh Accord of 1975 is also seen in the prism of betrayal.
A notable example of political upheaval in Jammu and Kashmir is the transition from the Sadr-e-Riyasat to the Governor and from the Prime Minister to the Chief Minister. This change took place in the early 1960s and marked a significant shift in the region’s governance structure. Initially, Jammu and Kashmir had a unique political setup where the Sadr-e-Riyasat was the ceremonial head of state, while the Prime Minister, akin to a Chief Minister, was the executive head of government. This arrangement reflected the state’s special status under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, providing a degree of autonomy. However, in 1963, amid growing political tension and central government pressure, significant constitutional and administrative changes were implemented. The position of Sadr-e-Riyasat was replaced by that of the Governor, a move that centralized authority and diminished the region’s autonomy. This shift was formalized through the Presidential Order of 1963, which effectively removed the Sadr-e-Riyasat from the state’s governance framework. Simultaneously, the role of Prime Minister was changed to Chief Minister. This transition was part of a broader effort to align Jammu and Kashmir’s governance with the central administrative framework of India. The reconstitution aimed to streamline administration by Delhi but was perceived by many as an erosion of the region’s unique political identity and self-governance as promised to J&K. These changes were seen as a betrayal by many in Jammu and Kashmir, who viewed them as a means to undermine their special status and reduce regional autonomy. The centralization of power and the replacement of traditional titles with those reflecting broader Indian administrative norms contributed to a deep sense of political cynicism and disenfranchisement among the local population.
The late 1980s marked a turning point with the rise of insurgency in J&K. The rigged 1987 state elections, which saw widespread allegations of electoral fraud and manipulation, were a significant catalyst for the insurgency. The alleged betrayal by the ruling parties, which were seen to undermine the democratic process, led to widespread unrest. The ensuing violence and the rise of militant groups can be traced back to this period of electoral misconduct. The conflict that ensued resulted in severe loss of life and property, exacerbating the sense of betrayal among the Kashmiri people. The 1990s were marked by intense violence and political instability. The rise of militant insurgency, combined with harsh counter-insurgency measures by Indian forces, created a cycle of violence and retaliation. Political parties in J&K struggled to maintain control and address the grievances of their constituents, further eroding public trust. The attempts by the Indian government to negotiate peace were often undermined by a lack of genuine commitment, with political promises frequently falling short of their implementation.
A significant other example of political instability in Jammu and Kashmir occurred in 2002, following the state assembly elections. The elections, which were held after a period of intense insurgency and violence, resulted in a surprising outcome where the National Conference (NC), led by Farooq Abdullah, lost its majority to a coalition led by the Indian National Congress (INC) and the newly formed Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The NC, despite its defeat, was instrumental in challenging the legitimacy of the new coalition government. The political maneuvering and allegations of election rigging by the NC, combined with the complex nature of coalition politics, led to prolonged legal and political disputes. The political crisis reached a climax when Governor’s Rule was imposed in the state in February 2003 due to the inability of the coalition government to function effectively amidst the ongoing disputes. The imposition of Governor’s Rule was viewed by many as a strategic move to break the deadlock and reassert control, but it also highlighted the deep divisions and manipulation within the political process in Jammu and Kashmir by the center. The episode further fueled public cynicism towards both local and central political actors, contributing to a sense of instability and frustration among the electorate.
The abrogation of Article 370 on August 5, 2019, was a seismic event in the political history of J&K. The Indian government’s decision to revoke the state’s special status and bifurcate it into two union territories was seen as a dramatic betrayal of the promises made at the time of accession. The move was accompanied by a massive security crackdown, curfews, and communication blackouts, which further alienated the local population. This unilateral decision was viewed by many as an assault on the region’s autonomy and a disregard for the longstanding political and historical agreements. Kashmiri people often find it difficult to trust state and central politicians due to a history of broken promises, political betrayals, and perceived insensitivity to their unique cultural and political needs. The frequent changes in governance, such as the removal of the Sadr-e-Riyasat and the imposition of central rule, coupled with controversial decisions like the abrogation of Article 370, have deepened the sense of betrayal.
The history of shifting political allegiances and failed commitments has fostered a profound skepticism towards political leaders. That is the reason of the uncertinity among people regarding this assembly election that is taking place in Jammu and Kashmir after a period of ten years. To win back the trust of the Kashmiri people, politicians must demonstrate genuine commitment to addressing local grievances, ensure transparent and inclusive governance, and engage in meaningful dialogue with regional stakeholders. A focus on long-term developmental goals, respect for the region’s autonomy, and an earnest effort to understand and integrate the cultural and political aspirations of the Kashmiri people can help rebuild trust and foster a more positive relationship between the region and its leaders.
Shadab Peerzada is a Politician, Technologist and Writer, can be reached at shadabpeerzada@yahoo.com
