Indian-controlled Kashmir votes in first regional election in decade

Indian paramilitary troops stand guard as people queue to vote during the first phase of the Jammu and Kashmir assembly election in Kishtwar on Sept. 18, 2024. (AP Photo)
Short Url
Updated 18 September 2024
Follow

Indian-controlled Kashmir votes in first regional election in decade

  • 9 million Kashmiris are registered to vote to elect a 90-member local assembly
  • Region has been without a government since 2018, when a coalition elected in 2014 fell apart

NEW DELHI: The three-phased regional election started in Jammu and Kashmir on Wednesday, with voters casting their ballots for the first time in a decade and in a new political setting after the Indian government stripped the region of its autonomy.

The election is held in stages until Oct. 1 to elect a 90-member local assembly instead of remaining under the direct rule of New Delhi. The result will be announced on Oct. 8.

Over 9 million Kashmiris are registered to vote in the region known for boycotting elections.

“This election is important because the election is taking place after 10 years,” said Mubashir Ahmad Bhat, a businessman in the Shopian district in Kashmir’s south.

In the first phase, 24 local assembly seats were contested, with 16 in the southern Kashmir valley and eight in the Hindu-dominated Jammu region. Over 2.3 million people were registered to vote.

“The election will bring our own people to the assembly who will hopefully listen to us,” Bhat said. “When the new elected government comes, people’s problems would be addressed.”

Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir is part of the larger Kashmiri territory, which has been the subject of international dispute since the 1947 partition of the Indian subcontinent into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan.

Both countries claim Kashmir in full and rule in part. Indian-controlled Kashmir has, for decades, witnessed outbreaks of separatist insurgencies to resist control from the government in New Delhi.

The Indian-controlled Kashmir has been without a local government since 2018 when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party brought down a coalition government elected in 2014, forcing the assembly to dissolve.

A year later, Modi’s government repealed Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted the region its semi-autonomy and downgraded it from a state to a federally controlled territory.

Voting for candidates who could lead the change and reclaim some of the region’s agency is what pushes many Kashmiris to cast their ballots.

“We haven’t had our government for the last 10 years. We want our own government who can listen to us,” Mohammed Munsif Saqib, a 32-year-old businessman, told Arab News.

After the scrapping of Kashmir’s autonomous status and statehood, a series of administrative changes followed, with the Indian government removing protections on land and jobs for the local population, which many likened to attempts at demographically altering the region.

“We have lost many facilities after losing the statehood and we want the statehood back. We have had our own local reservation in jobs and educational institutions, which are not there,” Saqib said.

“The loss of the special status is also motivating people to come out and express their feelings through the vote. This was important and people felt it. But the most important thing is the restoration of statehood.”

Some of the candidates — among the 219 competing — have been present in Kashmiri politics for years, including Iltija Mufti, the daughter of Kashmir’s former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti, and Omar Abdullah, former chief minister whose father and grandfather have also held the office.

But younger voters like 32-year-old Abdul Rashid Pala from Shopian seek change and new prospects in the region where unemployment stands at around 18 percent — nearly double India’s average.

“We want our own policymakers for development. The assembly will bring a good employment scheme,” he said.

“My motivation to vote is that the politics here is concentrated in a few hands and I am against this dynastic politics. I am for development.”


War powers resolution fails in Senate as 2 Republicans bow to Trump pressure

Updated 15 January 2026
Follow

War powers resolution fails in Senate as 2 Republicans bow to Trump pressure

WASHINGTON: Senate Republicans voted to dismiss a war powers resolution Wednesday that would have limited President Donald Trump’s ability to conduct further attacks on Venezuela after two GOP senators reversed course on supporting the legislation.
Trump put intense pressure on five Republican senators who joined with Democrats to advance the resolution last week and ultimately prevailed in heading off passage of the legislation. Two of the Republicans — Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Todd Young of Indiana — flipped under the pressure.
Vice President JD Vance had to break the 50-50 deadlock in the Senate on a Republican motion to dismiss the bill.
The outcome of the high-profile vote demonstrated how Trump still has command over much of the Republican conference, yet the razor-thin vote tally also showed the growing concern on Capitol Hill over the president’s aggressive foreign policy ambitions.
Democrats forced the debate after US troops captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a surprise nighttime raid earlier this month
“Here we have one of the most successful attacks ever and they find a way to be against it. It’s pretty amazing. And it’s a shame,” Trump said at a speech in Michigan Tuesday. He also hurled insults at several of the Republicans who advanced the legislation, calling Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky a “stone cold loser” and Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine “disasters.” Those three Republicans stuck to their support for the legislation.
Trump’s latest comments followed earlier phone calls with the senators, which they described as terse. The president’s fury underscored how the war powers vote had taken on new political significance as Trump also threatens military action to accomplish his goal of possessing Greenland.
The legislation, even if it had cleared the Senate, had virtually no chance of becoming law because it would eventually need to be signed by Trump himself. But it represented both a test of GOP loyalty to the president and a marker for how much leeway the Republican-controlled Senate is willing to give Trump to use the military abroad. Republican angst over his recent foreign policy moves — especially threats of using military force to seize Greenland from a NATO ally — is still running high in Congress.
Two Republicans reconsider
Hawley, who helped advance the war powers resolution last week, said Trump’s message during a phone call was that the legislation “really ties my hands.” The senator said he had a follow-up phone call with Secretary of State Marco Rubio Monday and was told “point blank, we’re not going to do ground troops.”
The senator added that he also received assurances that the Trump administration will follow constitutional requirements if it becomes necessary to deploy troops again to the South American country.
“We’re getting along very well with Venezuela,” Trump told reporters at a ceremony for the signing of an unrelated bill Wednesday.
As senators went to the floor for the vote Wednesday evening, Young also told reporters he was no longer in support. He said that he had extensive conversations with Rubio and received assurances that the secretary of state will appear at a public hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Young also shared a letter from Rubio that stated the president will “seek congressional authorization in advance (circumstances permitting)” if he engaged in “major military operations” in Venezuela.
The senators also said his efforts were also instrumental in pushing the administration to release Wednesday a 22-page Justice Department memo laying out the legal justification for the snatch-and-grab operation against Maduro.
That memo, which was heavily redacted, indicates that the administration, for now, has no plans to ramp up military operations in Venezuela.
“We were assured that there is no contingency plan to engage in any substantial and sustained operation that would amount to a constitutional war,” according to the memo signed by Assistant Attorney General Elliot Gaiser.
Trump’s shifting rationale for military intervention
Trump has used a series of legal arguments for his campaign against Maduro.
As he built up a naval force in the Caribbean and destroyed vessels that were allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela, the Trump administration tapped wartime powers under the global war on terror by designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations.
The administration has claimed the capture of Maduro himself was actually a law enforcement operation, essentially to extradite the Venezuelan president to stand trial for charges in the US that were filed in 2020.
Paul criticized the administration for first describing its military build-up in Caribbean as a counternarcotics operation but now floating Venezuela’s vast oil reserves as a reason for maintaining pressure.
“The bait and switch has already happened,” he said.
Trump’s foreign policy worries Congress
Lawmakers, including a significant number of Republicans, have been alarmed by Trump’s recent foreign policy talk. In recent weeks, he has pledged that the US will “run” Venezuela for years to come, threatened military action to take possession of Greenland and told Iranians protesting their government that ” help is on its way.”
Senior Republicans have tried to massage the relationship between Trump and Denmark, a NATO ally that holds Greenland as a semi-autonomous territory. But Danish officials emerged from a meeting with Vance and Rubio Wednesday saying a “fundamental disagreement” over Greenland remains.
“What happened tonight is a roadmap to another endless war,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said at a news conference following the vote.
More than half of US adults believe President Donald Trump has “gone too far” in using the US military to intervene in other countries, according to a new AP-NORC poll.
House Democrats have also filed a similar war powers resolution and can force a vote on it as soon as next week.
How Republican leaders dismissed the bill

Last week’s procedural vote on the war powers resolution was supposed to set up hours of debate and a vote on final passage. But Republican leaders began searching for a way to defuse the conflict between their members and Trump as well as move on quickly to other business.
Once Hawley and Young changed their support for the bill, Republicans were able to successfully challenge whether it was appropriate when the Trump administration has said US troops are not currently deployed in Venezuela.
“We’re not currently conducting military operations there,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune in a floor speech. “But Democrats are taking up this bill because their anti-Trump hysteria knows no bounds.”
Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who has brought a series of war powers resolutions this year, accused Republicans of burying a debate about the merits of an ongoing campaign of attacks and threats against Venezuela.
“If this cause and if this legal basis were so righteous, the administration and its supporters would not be afraid to have this debate before the public and the United States Senate,” he said in a floor speech.