Election Manifestos, Leadership Crisis, and Polarization

The recently concluded Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir were not merely a political contest but a reflection of growing public disillusionment with conventional politics and deeper socio-political fault lines in the region. Voters, particularly in the Kashmir valley, largely ignored the manifestos of political parties like the National Conference (NC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

A broad perception exists that election manifestos are crafted solely to lure voters and have little to no impact on governance post-election. This article delves into the dynamics of these elections, the decline of regional leadership and the implications of political polarization across Jammu and Kashmir.

Voters in Jammu and Kashmir have grown cynical about political manifestos, especially those of NC and PDP. Past experiences suggest that these documents are designed to lure voters, only to be discarded once power is secured.

Many voters believe that the political course of parties drastically shifts after forming the government, often diverging from their electoral promises. The lack of consistency between promises and actions has led to a loss of trust as voters see these manifestos as opportunistic tools rather than genuine commitments. This skepticism has become particularly acute in the post-2019 landscape, where the perceived gap between government actions and public expectations has widened.

The 2024 elections were widely viewed as “leaderless,” with voters paying little attention to party leaders. NC leader Omar Abdullah remained confined to his constituencies in Ganderbal and Budgam, reeling from his earlier defeat in the Lok Sabha elections. This limited campaign presence highlighted a political leader grappling with personal trauma and diminished appeal among voters.

In contrast, Srinagar MP Ruhullah Mehdi emerged as the most visible NC campaigner, traveling extensively across Jammu and Kashmir. On the other side, the PDP, once a dominant regional force, has seen its political stock plummet due to growing mistrust and accusations of opportunistic alliances with the BJP. Both NC and PDP, once viewed as protectors of regional interests, have lost much of their credibility, resulting in a crisis of confidence among the masses.

In Kashmir, the Assembly election results revealed a curious pattern. It was observed that the BJP candidates did better than the candidates who were seen as ‘BJP proxies’, or those from parties labelled as the ‘BJP B teams’.

This pattern was observed particularly regarding those individuals who were considered as ‘freshers’ among the BJP candidates.

These were the new faces who possess a clean slate and did not have a discredited image or any political baggage. For such ‘fresh candidates’, winning 3000 to 4000 votes on the BJP election symbol was not a small thing.

This pattern is indicative of the fact that people in Kashmir are ready to accept a candidate who comes forth in his true avatar, and without the proxy tag.

Despite its weakened leadership and declining credibility, NC managed to secure a significant mandate in Kashmir. This victory was not a result of the party’s popularity but rather the absence of viable alternatives.

Independent candidates and smaller political outfits were widely perceived as having covert tactical understandings with the ruling BJP. This suspicion among voters significantly damaged the prospects of these candidates.

Had the electorate found an alternative untainted by perceived alliances with the BJP, they would likely have rejected NC just as they did with PDP and other smaller political forces. But faced with a limited choice, voters opted for NC as the least undesirable option, reflecting a pragmatic approach to navigating a politically complex environment. In this scenario, voters were not guided by leaders but by personal assessments of respective candidates in the constituencies. This election, therefore, represented a form of direct democracy, where the candidate’s individual credibility mattered more than their party affiliation or manifesto.

In many cases, voters preferred rogue candidates over supposedly saner voices from other parties. The reason was simple: those saner voices were seen as carrying the baggage of BJP alliances, which rendered them untrustworthy. The election outcome, thus, speaks more to the perceptions surrounding candidates rather than their actual political platforms.

The results in Kashmir have raised a critical question: Are the people of the region unwilling to align with the party in power at the center, particularly the BJP? While it may appear that the electorate’s rejection of candidates associated with the BJP reflects lingering anger over the events of 2019—such as the abrogation of Article 370—the underlying causes are more nuanced. The resentment expressed in this election is not about the 2019 events but what followed thereafter.

The anger among the people of Kashmir is primarily directed at the bureaucratic arrogance and opaque governance that marked the post-2019 period. Frequent, unexplained orders issued from the Raj Bhawan were widely perceived as anti-Kashmir and anti-people.

The absence of effective administration to justify or explain these policies to the public deepened the sense of alienation. People were willing to reconcile with the new political realities imposed post-2019, accepting them as a fait accompli. However, what they could not tolerate was the manner in which governance was conducted, with a bureaucratic high-handedness that disregarded public sentiment and transparency.

The problem, therefore, lies more in perception than in specific policy actions.

The absence of communication and justification for critical decisions fostered insecurity and mistrust. This perception that the government was insensitive to public needs played a significant role in shaping voter behavior, resulting in the rejection of candidates perceived to have ties with the BJP.

The election outcome was also influenced by widespread economic discontent. Issues such as unemployment, inflation and brain drain have plagued the region in recent years. The horticulture sector, a lifeline in Kashmir, faced severe disruptions due to government policies and climatic challenges. Additionally, the government’s emphasis on tourism as a success story came at the cost of environmental sustainability. While tourism figures were projected as a sign of economic revival, the environmental damage and ecological fragility caused by unchecked tourism growth were ignored.

The electorate’s frustrations were compounded by the LG administration’s insensitivity toward these pressing issues. The socio-economic concerns, combined with the perceived arrogance of governance, created a volatile political atmosphere where voters expressed their anger through their choices at the ballot box which solely favored National Conference in Kashmir region.

The election results also reflect the deep political polarization that has gripped Jammu and Kashmir since the 2008 Amarnath Shrine Land Row. In Kashmir, NC’s victory was driven by the rejection of candidates seen as allied with the BJP, while in Jammu, the BJP secured a resounding mandate.

This regional polarization has become a defining feature of the political landscape, with each region voting along communal and ideological lines.

Despite securing mandates in their respective regions, neither NC in Kashmir nor BJP in Jammu can be said to have truly earned their electoral success based on governance performance. Both parties have failed to address critical issues affecting the people on the ground.

Yet, the polarized atmosphere has allowed them to consolidate support in their respective regions, creating a political divide that will likely persist in the foreseeable future.

As Jammu and Kashmir move forward, the challenge for political parties will be to rebuild trust and bridge the growing divide between Jammu and Kashmir. For now, however, the mandate stands as a reminder that when people feel betrayed by administration and governance, they will make choices out of necessity rather than conviction—choosing what seems least harmful in an atmosphere of deep mistrust.