Detention of leaders heading the contesting political parties is new norm of election regulation in Jammu and Kashmir as State Election Commissioner K K Sharma in one of his recent reactions to the house detention of PDP President Mehbooba Mufti said that Mehbooba being a former Chief Minister has to follow the security protocol. As such question can be asked the why the security protocol is not enforced strictly in other parts of the country but only in Jammu & Kashmir and that too in election time only. Sharma being the top election regulating authority in Jammu & Kashmir owes an explanation to the question that if such restrictions are not imposed on leaders of the contesting political parties uniformly and why these restrictions are imposed selectively only on the signatories of PAGD (Peoples’ Alliance For Gupkar Declaration). Fact remains that people of different shades and opinions have already expressed their doubts over the appointment of K K Sharma as State Election Commissioner on the grounds that his ( Sharma’s) neutrality in the conduct of DDC elections can’t be guaranteed for the reasons of having held the positions of advisors to both the Governor of the erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir state Staya Pal Malik and the incumbent Lt Governor Manoj Sinha for over 2 years . To people in media and civil society in Jammu and Kashmir Sharma’s appointment as State Election Commissioner looked more a transfer from the position of Advisor to Lt Governor to State Election Commissioner than appointment as State Election Commissioner. As such Sharma having remained a part of the Jammu & Kashmir Government since the fall of Mehbooba led PDP-BJP Government in June 2018 asking former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufi to follow security protocol is by all standards of understandabilities an indefensible defence. Even if the rumours that Mehbooba was detained with her own consent are to be believed, question can be asked that why do the law enforcers of the Jammu & Kashmir government detaine leaders of the contesting parties on their consent only and not on the grounds of it’s own judgment about the prevailing situation in Jammu & Kashmir.
The highly objectionable security protocol evoking allegations of discrimination in the security of the leaders and contesting candidates of different parties has intensified the fear of 1987 like rigging in the DDC elections. All eyes are on the transparency of the elections as the actions of both the law enforces and as well as the election regulating authorities including deputy commissioners have come in for sharp criticism and condemnation from people in politics, media and the civil society.
The bigger question however is that why should the law enforcers of the Jammu & Kashmir Government selectively impose restrictions on few leaders and allow others to walk free. The highly objectionable security protocol evoking allegations of discrimination in the security of the leaders and contesting candidates of different parties has intensified the fear of 1987 like rigging in the DDC elections. All eyes are on the transparency of the elections as the actions of both the law enforces and as well as the election regulating authorities including deputy commissioners have come in for sharp criticism and condemnation from people in politics, media and the civil society,.
