Recent state elections in Jammu and Kashmir, and the loss of power by the National Conference party that has dominated politics there since independence, have created a spark of hope that political tensions in the Kashmir Valley could de-escalate. It was a badly flawed election in 1987 that helped fuel a long running militant insurrection and general uprising, and tens of thousands have died in subsequent violence. Violence has been further amplified by historical strategic tensions between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir, and Kashmiri hopes for a political voice have often unfortunately become caught up in this broader international rivalry.^[fn]This report focuses on the Kashmir problem from the perspective of the (overwhelmingly Muslim) people of Srinagar and the Kashmir Valley. Forthcoming ICG reports will address the issue from the perspectives of Islamabad and New Delhi.Hide Footnote

For the first time since independence, a non-National Conference leader is in power. Equally historic, it is the first time that the state’s leadership is different than the ruling party in New Delhi – a very welcome sign of political liberalisation. While the state elections have been seen as a window of opportunity for peace in Kashmir, it is also clear that they only represent a first step in unravelling the long cycle of violence. Indeed, if the Indian government chooses to act as if the elections alone were sufficient to address a myriad of Kashmiri grievances, it will only be a matter of time before violence again escalates – just as it did in the run-up to the ballot itself. Indeed, violence has continued unabated after the elections and the formation of the new government in Srinagar.

Pakistan's support for cross border infiltration by militants has directly contributed to the ongoing conflict in the region. But some of the violence in Srinagar and the rest of the valley and the abiding Kashmiri disaffection with New Delhi are the product of India’s own actions. Indian security forces have often practised draconian means in their efforts to combat Kashmiri militants and separatists and have relied heavily on militia groups that have acted violently and extra-legally. Human rights abuses abound as a plethora of anti-terrorism legislation is used to crush Kashmiri dissent and political aspirations. Many Kashmiris also rightly bemoan the general lack of economic and educational opportunities in the valley and a steadily creeping rot of corruption in local institutions.

India would be wise to view the election results less as an embrace of India by Kashmiris than a rejection of New Delhi’s use of military force and disrespect for human rights as well as a desire for peace and economic security. The voter turnout in the valley– virtually non-existent in Srinagar – reflected Kashmiri scepticism that elections translate into meaningful political, social and economic change. It is up to Kashmir’s New Chief Minister, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed to prove them wrong.

The new Kashmir government has vowed to meet the grievances of Kashmiris by restoring peace, restraining the security forces, preventing human rights abuses, and reviving an economy devastated by war. However, Chief Minister Mufti Sayeed is less inclined to hold unconditional talks, as he had earlier pledged with Kashmiri militants and separatist parties, preferring to leave that task with New Delhi. In the absence of political reconciliation and accommodation within Kashmir and the beginnings of a serious political dialogue between India and Pakistan, hopes for an early end to this long running conflict will remain just that.

Islamabad/Brussels, 21 November 2002