Biggest Surprises in Jammu Kashmir and Haryana Elections 2024

Jammu & Kashmir Election Results — Courtesy: ECI Website

While reading today’s newspapers, an interesting trend caught my eye. Most newspapers in India are left-leaning, so election results are primarily presented in a way that props up the left-leaning parties. For example, “NC got a thumping victory,” in contrast to a more subdued “BJP earned a hat-trick in Haryana.” No fancy adjectives. Another example is “J&K has rejected BJP’s politics” while failing to report that BJP’s vote share has been increasing in J&K with every passing election. In some newspapers, Vinesh Phogat’s win was highlighted more than the overall performances of individual parties.

The election results declared on 8^th October have been filled with surprises. However, due to the media’s own biased leanings, not every fact made it to the papers. Here are some of the top surprises from the Haryana and J&K Elections 2024.

BJP getting more seats than Mehbooba Mufti’s PDP in J&K

From a party that used to get single-digit votes in Kashmir, BJP’s vote count has now risen to four digits. The party came second in J&K, beating Mehbooba Mufti’s PDP.

PDP is an indigenous Kashmiri political party. The party has been on the political scene in Kashmir for ages. This time, most of the PDP’s votes went to NC in the Kashmir region. PDP’s association with the BJP in the recent past proved to be its undoing. Interestingly, this camaraderie did not have the same effect on the BJP, as its vote share increased from the 2014 elections.

Jammu & Kashmir Seats and Vote Share — Courtesy: The Hindu

No one, including BJP members, ever countered the fact that BJP would not win a single seat in Kashmir. It was reported that even the people of Jammu, along with Kashmiri Pandits, BJP’s primary vote base, were dissatisfied with the saffron party as their demands were left unaddressed.

Considering that politicians like Omar Abdullah were saying there was intense anger brewing in the valley beneath the surface of peace and tranquility, it was surprising to see the BJP not only increase its number of seats without an alliance but also its overall vote share in J&K albeit marginally, as compared to the 2014 elections.

If we were to analyze just Kashmir alone, the BJP neither lost nor gained its vote share (2.2%) in the region. So, in summary, the BJP increased its seats/vote share in Jammu while maintaining its vote share in Kashmir. If the Abrogation of Section 370 was indeed a major point of discontent for J&K locals, we should have seen a drastic decrease in BJP’s seat count/vote share. But that’s not what happened.

Jammu & Kashmir Region-wise Vote Share — Courtesy: The Hindu

The media and politicians might paint the Kashmir election results as a big loss for the BJP and a “befitting reply to BJP by the people for the Abrogation of 370”, but the data seems to indicate otherwise. Yes, they did not win a seat, but the fact that in many seats of Muslim-dominated Kashmir, BJP came second, beating Congress and PDP, implies there’s far more to the story than what meets the eye.

BJP losing Gurez in Baramulla by a mere 1132 votes

Gurez is a seat that is 98% Muslim and where the BJP did not have any presence till now. Faqeer Mohammad Khan from the BJP lost by a mere 1132 votes to NC’s Nazir Ahmad Khan.

This close contest has been the biggest shocker from the Kashmir region, considering the BJP is always portrayed as an “anti-Muslim” party.

BJP’s Shagun Parihar winning Muslim-dominated Kishtwar seat

There is a misconception that Jammu is a “Hindu-only” area and Kashmir is a “Muslim-only” area. Jammu has areas with a significant Muslim population. One such area is Kishtwar, a district that has long been a hotbed of militant activities.

Shagun’s father and uncle were murdered by Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists in 2018. She initially had no plan to join politics, but after the murder of her father and uncle, she felt the need to bring about a change. Her victory, albeit by a small margin, proved to be sweet revenge.

Speaking to the media after the verdict, she said: “We have lost a large number of our soldiers. I have lost my father, and some have lost their brothers and sons. My first effort will be to ensure that every child here has the shadow of a father over his head and that there is peace and prosperity in the area. My efforts will be to bring happiness to every home.”

Jamaat-e-Islami and former separatists faced a big loss in J&K

When members from banned radical groups like Jamaat-e-Islami and former separatists were allowed to contest this election individually, many were worried.

As Kashmir continues to be a sensitive zone, analysts questioned the motive behind this move and the consequences of having radical elements elected into power. However, the people of J&K answered this pressing question through their votes, resoundingly rejecting the radicals and choosing a party like the National Conference instead, which believes in working democratically within the rules of the Indian constitution. This has come as a relief for many, especially since Engineer Rashid was elected as MP in the Lok Sabha elections.

The loss of Engineer Rashid’s party in the J&K election has provided ample proof that his victory in the Lok Sabha elections was a case of sympathy voting. His sons had extensively campaigned for him before general elections, saying the only way their father could escape jail was if he became an MP. However, in the case of the J&K elections, Kashmiris seemed to have drawn a line, and Rashid was unable to replicate his victorious stint in the general elections.

Congress in a way lost both Haryana and J&K

Even though Congress is an ally of the NC in J&K, their standalone performance proved to be lackluster. Congress managed to earn only 6 seats in J&K, compared to BJP’s 29. This cannot be considered a victory for Congress. In Jammu, too, an area where they were stationed to put up a strong fight against the BJP, they managed to win only one seat.

NC leader Omar Abdullah admitted post-election that, in hindsight, the alliance was unnecessary as they would have won the election anyway without the help of Congress.

Haryana outcome

Haryana’s election results came as a shock to everyone, including right-wingers. The trend was overwhelmingly leaning towards anti-incumbency in the state. BJP has been ruling Haryana for over a decade, and there were a plethora of issues surrounding “farmers, soldiers, and wrestlers” plaguing the state.

However, around a month back, it was reported that the non-Jats were having second thoughts about Jats supporting Congress and gaining power. This led to a consolidation of non-Jat votes against Congress. It is a simple case of caste-based politics gone wrong for the party.

Haryana Election Results — Courtesy: The Hindu

RSS played a huge role in BJP’s victory

Reportedly, RSS went above and beyond in Haryana, campaigning door to door, distributing pamphlets that highlighted the dangers of caste-based divisive politics, ensuring everyone got their voter slips on time, and organizing outreach programs.

In the Lok Sabha Elections, it was reported that there had been a fallout between the BJP and RSS, which led to RSS members not making any effort to help the BJP. BJP seems to have realized its blunder post-election and made a conscious effort to re-establish connection with RSS, which is undeniably its backbone. Several changes were made in Haryana based on RSS’ recommendations. It ended up proving effective.

Conclusion

Yet again, Exit polls in India have turned out to be a disaster. You never know what the janta is thinking. There are silent voters who make their stance known only through their votes. Exit polls have been unable to infiltrate that section.

One thing is clear: this election has been a big win for democracy, especially in the Kashmir valley. The turnout was impressive. The trust they placed in the Indian democratic process is noteworthy. As Modi mentioned, the peaceful conduct of the J&K election has proven to be a victory in itself.

Is Hinduism a Pagan Religion? Is a “Hindu State” Dangerous?

I’ve always viewed Hinduism as a mainstream religion. However, I recently learned that there are people, especially outside India, who consider Hinduism as “pagan.” Surprisingly, even within India, some Hindus refer to themselves as “the last polytheistic pagans remaining on earth.”

However, an article on Scroll by Arvind Sharma presented an interesting explanation of why Hinduism cannot be considered Pagan.

This pluralistic nature of Hinduism could explain why India, a Hindu-majority country, is able to embrace the beliefs of diverse communities. Communal clashes happen, but everyone is free to complain. There is no existential threat. The freedom to complain is in itself an underrated freedom. People in several countries cannot question their government or the majority religion. Sadly, we often take this freedom for granted.

Currently, there is no self-declared Hindu nation; all nations with a Hindu majority identify as secular. Even if a country were to declare itself a “Hindu nation” in the future, the principle of secularism would likely endure, as the idea of secularism is deeply embedded within Hinduism itself. So, a Hindu nation will not be one that would force people into converting to Hinduism, but one that is already in effect and on full display in Hindu-majority nations. Take the case of India. LGBT couples can have a joint bank account in India, abortion is legal, and atheism is tolerated. You are free to worship your god, not worship a god, or go to any religious place of your choice. No one is going to force you to wear a religious symbol or yank it off you.

Is India perfect? Definitely not. It’s like any other pluralistic nation. There is discrimination, but not to the extent the media, especially Western media, reports. Some even peddle fake news as the reality, without hearing both sides of the story.

The problem with religious propaganda is that it attracts the wrong kind of people. Recently, Rahul Gandhi said that Sikhs are unable to practice their religion freely in India. This came as a shock to many, including Sikhs in the country, as there have been no such allegations in the last decade from the community. However, the leader of a separatist group was happy and quoted Rahul’s words to reinforce the group’s agenda to form an independent nation for Sikhs that spans parts of India. Similarly, allegations against India of being Islamophobic have triggered radical Islamist groups like ISIS. The group frequently references India (particularly Hindus) in their newsletters, using the country’s internal clashes to advance its agenda and emphasize to its followers the need for “disciplining” us.

Seeking justice is acceptable. However, I hope people, especially Indians, are mindful of exaggerating communal events in the country, as they often end up catching the attention of extremists, who then use the news to create propaganda videos and material for fueling hatred and recruiting new members to their groups. When the time comes, extremists do not look at political party affiliations, religion, race, color, caste, region, or language before they cause havoc. Everyone is the same for them. Being wary of social media activism is essential for our country’s well-being. We should double-check details from both left-wing and right-wing sources to get a full idea of the story. Most journalists in India today are biased, which is why due diligence is required before endorsing/believing stories.

Before signing off, I wish to share this tweet by Shehla Rashid, which beautifully debunks the communal allegations against India.

Hindus Least Likely to Migrate, India Is Top Source and Destination Country: Pew Survey

Did you know that around 3.6% of the world’s population lives outside their country of origin? The Pew Research Center has come up with some interesting insights on the religious composition of the world’s migrants in their latest survey. Who migrates more? What are the top three origin and destination countries for each community? Which country hosts the most number of immigrants? The survey answers all these pertinent questions and more with detailed insights.

This post includes infographics created by the CNN-News18 creative team.

Reasons for migration

Why do people migrate? The survey reveals several reasons, such as the need to find jobs, to live with other family members, or for better education. However, religion also plays a part in migration. Migrants have often moved to escape persecution. There is also the need to live with people with similar religious beliefs.

To quote the survey, “Many migrants have moved to escape religious persecution or to live among people who hold similar religious beliefs. Often people move and take their religion with them, contributing to gradual changes in their new country’s religious makeup.“

Worldwide migrant counts have increased for all major religious groups

Religious groups most and least likely to migrate

Hindus tend to migrate less as compared to other religious groups and Christians are most likely to migrate from their place of origin.

As per the survey, “Christians are the largest migrant group, but Jews are most likely to have migrated.”

The top source and destination country for Christian migrants

To quote the survey, “Christians make up a much larger share of migrants (47%) than they do of the world’s population (30%). Mexico is the most common origin country for Christian migrants, and the United States is their most common destination.“

Top source and destination countries for Christian migrants

The top source and destination country for Muslim migrants

In relation to Muslim migrants, the survey says, “Muslims account for a slightly larger share of migrants (29%) than of the world’s population (25%). Syria is the most common origin country for Muslim migrants, and Muslims often move to places in the Middle East-North Africa region, like Saudi Arabia.” Interestingly, Muslims tend to prefer migrating to “richer” regions that follow their religion. The top destinations for the community are Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and UAE.

Top source and destination countries for Muslim migrants

The top source and destination country for Hindu migrants

As per the survey, “Hindus are starkly underrepresented among international migrants (5%) compared with their share of the global population (15%). India is both the most common country of origin and the top destination for Hindu migrants.” Hindu migrants to India are most likely to originate from neighboring regions like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, where minorities face severe persecution. This is evident from statistics indicating a drastic decrease in minority numbers within these regions over the years.

Top source and destination countries for Hindu migrants

The Pew Survey offers a lot more detailed insights, so I would highly recommend going through it.

The Most Intriguing Fact in “Kashmir Narratives” by Colonel Ajay Raina

I recently bought a book titled Kashmir Narratives. It is authored by Colonel Ajay Raina, a retired Indian Army officer. To quote his bio on Amazon, “I am the only son of refugee parents who were young kids when the 1947 bloodied partition saw the creation of two new States of India and Pakistan and when the biggest ever migration of humans took place on this earth. Post my education, I got commissioned into the Indian Army as an officer in 1990 and served till the end of 2017.“

I happened to see his interview somewhere and decided to buy the book. It has a lot of information on Kashmir, focusing on its history, but what I found particularly interesting was the information on the condition of the plebiscite in Kashmir. Before we get to that, let’s understand what a plebiscite is.

What is a plebiscite?

A plebiscite is a direct vote by the people of a region (in this case, Kashmir) on an important public issue. In simpler words, in relation to Kashmir, a plebiscite allows Kashmiris to vote for its future – specifically, whether the region would join India or Pakistan. Interestingly, only these two options were presented, with no option explicitly listed of allowing Kashmir to function as an independent state.

How did the idea of a plebiscite in Kashmir emerge?

The idea of a plebiscite came into effect following the partition of British India in 1947 when the princely states were given the option to join either India or Pakistan.

Jammu and Kashmir initially chose to remain independent. However, after an invasion by tribal forces from Pakistan, Maharaja Hari Singh sought military assistance from India and signed the Instrument of Accession, formally acceding to India. This led to the first Indo-Pakistani war in 1947-48.

To resolve the conflict, the UN intervened, and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed Resolution 47 in 1948. This resolution called for a ceasefire, the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the region, and a significant reduction of Indian army officers. This was to allow for a free and fair plebiscite under UN supervision without any sort of intimidation. The plebiscite was supposed to let the people of Jammu and Kashmir decide their allegiance to either India or Pakistan. The result of the plebiscite would have depended on the majority vote.

However, the plebiscite was never conducted due to several reasons, including disagreements between India and Pakistan over the conditions set by the UN.

Clause (a) in Resolution 47

Most of us aren’t aware of Clause (a) in Resolution 47 passed by the UNSC. It states the condition of a plebiscite in Kashmir. Refer to UN Digital Library – Resolution 47 (1948) – Page 4:

To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State.

The clause requires the complete withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the region. However, this condition remains unfulfilled as militants keep infiltrating the area.

Interestingly, India keeps getting the majority of the blame for not allowing a plebiscite, while it’s clear that Pakistan hasn’t fulfilled its part of the resolution. The resolution placed initial responsibility on Pakistan to withdraw its forces from the region. Only after this withdrawal was India supposed to reduce its military presence. This was then to be followed by a plebiscite. Because neither side fully complied with the conditions set out in the resolution, the situation has remained unresolved.

Final thoughts

I can’t help but wonder, had the “freedom seekers” in Kashmir known about this condition for a plebiscite, would they have applied more force on Pakistani militants to move out of the region? As stated, the first step toward a plebiscite is to ensure the Pakistani militants have withdrawn completely.

The UN has not formally retracted Resolution 47. It is currently in a dormant state. However, there is a possibility of Resolution 47 being re-invoked if the UNSC decides to revisit it.

An Ode to Intermingling With Other Faiths

Yesterday, a Muslim friend visited, and we ended up discussing religion. She’s a practicing Muslim but not overly devout; for instance, she only wears a hijab when her mother-in-law visits.

During our conversation, she shared something beautiful:

People do things in the hope of reaching paradise. There’s so much fear surrounding it. But no one has ever returned from death to confirm if paradise truly exists. What we have now is paradise, isn’t it? You and I, of different faiths, sitting here together, conversing, laughing, and enjoying each other’s company—what better paradise could there be?

I asked her how she developed this perspective when everyone around her follows religious rules so strictly. She said it might be because she attended a non-religious school instead of an Islamic one. She emphasized how important it is to interact with other communities rather than only associating with people from our own. Her husband shares the same outlook. While he offers Namaz five times a day, he hasn’t imposed any religious restrictions on his wife or children. They are the only ones in their family who approach religion this way.

This principle is applicable to all communities. The more we engage with people from different backgrounds, the more open-minded and accepting we become of diverse ideas and perspectives. Conversely, isolating ourselves can lead to more rigid and extreme viewpoints.

I believe this may be why Indians tend to integrate more easily in foreign countries. Growing up in a society where different faiths coexist has shaped our ability to adapt. This is why I feel we should be sharing our culture with the world rather than adopting foreign ones. India’s inclusive culture, which embraces all faiths, is truly beautiful. I hope we continue to honor and preserve it.

***

Photo by Markus Spiske

An Indian’s Concern for Bangladeshi Hindus

It is with utter dismay I am reading the news about the attack on Hindus in Bangladesh. Secular Muslims in the country are trying to protect the Hindus. This is positive news, and you can’t help but feel grateful for such people in the community. However, radicals are still deliberately targeting the houses and religious places of Hindus. How can they be stopped?

Often, we have seen that in the struggle between radicals and seculars, the radicals emerge victorious. This has happened previously in Iran. A student uprising in Iran in 1979 played a significant role in the downfall of secularism and the emergence of the Islamic regime.

Student Protestors in Iran 1979 — Student protestors climbing the gate of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 / Wikimedia Commons

The reasons for the uprising back then were quite similar:

Widespread discontent with the Shah’s authoritarian rule, political repression, and economic issues.
Iranian students, both domestically and abroad, were active in organizing protests, disseminating anti-Shah literature, and galvanizing public opinion against the regime. They played a crucial role in spreading revolutionary ideas and mobilizing the masses.

A simple act of protesting an “authoritarian” rule in Iran brought in a more religious regime that was dictatorial in its tendencies. So how successful would one consider this student uprising, unless the original intention of the riots was not social justice, but a religious takeover? Shah, considered secular in nature, fled the country never to return, which in all probability will be Sheikh Hasina’s trajectory too. Comparisons are inevitable. Iran is still struggling to bring back its golden days of secularism. Will Bangladesh end up being the same? Only time will tell.

I saw Bangladeshi residents expressing their joy over Sheikh Hasina’s ouster, which is valid, as she was unnecessarily brutal in her approach. But I also saw them in private groups worrying about the future of the country and whether they will fall into the hands of radical Islamists. Some even said they would leave the country if it came to that.

What does this mean for India? Sheikh Hasina was considered pro-India in her approach. She kept the fundamentalists like the Jamaat-e-Islami and anti-India elements under check. This is of significance as India shares a long border with Bangladesh and any sort of instability has the potential to spill over to neighboring regions.

The new leader, Muhammad Yunus, is a Nobel Laureate. He has proven himself an intellectual, but how effective would he be as a politician and a peace-keeper? Will he be pro-India and continue to maintain peaceful relations with our country, promising to secure the borders and protect the minority community in Bangladesh? Or will he be a puppet for the radicals? Questions only time can answer.

As usual, the leftist ecosystem in India is working overtime to convince us that the Hindus in Bangladesh are not in trouble. This is not surprising. It is a standard approach when minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and even within India (Kashmiri Pandits) are attacked. The events are quickly negated or justified and brushed under the carpet. A close observation of their responses provides enough proof of their bias. In my 40+ years, I have never seen them acknowledge attacks against Hindus. There is always a “reason” for it.

If by chance you point out the attacks, you are labeled a right-wing communal Sanghi (a BJP supporter). However, if you support any other community, you are a social justice warrior, an activist, and a secular. This double standard is difficult to fathom, and I have seen many becoming BJP supporters because of this hypocrisy.

In India, I am witnessing more secular Muslims openly supporting Bangladeshi Hindus than the so-called secular Hindus. Due to the indifference of left-leaning Indian Hindus, the community will continue to suffer persecution at the hands of radicals. There is not enough support. For the support to pour in, people need to first acknowledge the fact that there is an issue.

It is with some relief I read that all political parties in India are on the same page regarding the Bangladesh issue. The opposition hasn’t yet negated the Bangladeshi Hindu’s plight. They voiced concern for the minorities in Bangladesh and said they would work in unity with the central government. A nuanced approach their supporters need to learn.

Hopefully, peace will soon be restored in Bangladesh, rendering my concerns unnecessary. Until that day arrives, my worries persist.