Kashmir is one of the most militarized places on Earth, caught between two nuclear-armed powers. In recent years, unrest in India-administered Kashmir is frequent and has claimed many lives. The Indian government accuses Pakistan of supporting militants, but Pakistan has denied this. Both countries have remained at odds, with the Kashmiri people stuck between them. Many Kashmiris oppose Indian rule, and many support independence or a merger with Pakistan.
Despite this, the Indian government has attempted to tighten its hold on the region. In the book “How Democracies Die” by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, they argue that consolidation of power requires three things by comparing to a sports game:
- Capture the referees: limit checks and balances by appointing loyalists o
- Sideline oppositions’ star players: silence rivals by discrediting or jailing
- Rewrite the rules: change the system to ensure an advantage
In recent months, the Indian government has used each step to strengthen its foothold on Kashmir. Historically, sectarian violence and political tension between India and Pakistan have plagued the region. After the British withdrew from the region in the late 1940s, the area was divided into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. After a conflict between the two over the territory in 1948, the UN determined that the people of the majority Muslim Kashmir should hold a referendum on their status. Pakistani and Indian interference prevented this and Kashmir was effectively partitioned into two. Violence remains a constant in the area, with wars breaking out in 1971 and again in 1999.
When referencing the Indian government, it’s important to know who is in control of the legislative and executive branches. The Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian People’s Party or the BJP) is widely recognized as a Hindu nationalist party, which follows a recent trend in politics toward nativism and religiosity. Despite denying being anti-secular, the party claims that “Secularism has been reduced to minority appeasement, that too at the cost of majority”. The basis of their policies is ‘Ram Rajya’, the belief that a perfect democracy can be achieved by reflecting Hinduism in policy and culture.
Capture the referees
In 2016, the BJP won a solo majority in the parliamentary system, marking the first time in 30 years that a single party ruled without a coalition, and has remained in power for the last 5 years. Historically, a coalition of similarly oriented parties was a requirement to pass legislation in the Indian parliament. As a result, their rare majority has allowed the party to limit legislative checks on their power despite being democratically elected. Levitsky and Ziblatt do not specifically mention democratically elected majorities as a way to fulfill the first requirement of capturing referees. Yet, the lack of a strong opposition party has dramatically increased the BJP’s ability to pass favorable legislation.
Rewrite the Rules
One of the BJP’s major campaign promises in the most recent election was to repeal Article 370, taking away Kashmir’s special status under the Indian government. Article 370 broadly allowed Kashmir to live under their own constitution, manage residency and land ownership, and fundamental rights. At the beginning of August 2019, the BJP followed through with their promise and stripped the state of its special status. This is a significant change in the country’s constitution, following the third requirement Levitsky and Ziblatt specify: rewriting the rules for an advantage. The repeal of this major stipulation gives the Indian government a significant advantage over Kashmir, legally reducing it to a territory rather than a wholly separate state. Levitsky and Ziblatt pointed out that reforms to the system are often framed in a positive light, and in this case, the ruling party argued that the article excluded Kashmir from the rest of India and impeded economic development. Critics fear that the move is motivated by a desire to manipulate the demographics of the area. By scrapping these provisions, the government can encourage Indian Hindus to buy land and move to Muslim majority Kashmir. This rewrite of the rules could open the door to anything ranging from land disputes to ethnic cleansing feared by the government of Pakistan. Ultimately, the goal of the Indian government may be to secure their claim to Kashmir by solidifying its constitutional relationship.
Sideline oppositions’ star players
The Indian government sent thousands of troops to Kashmir in the days leading up to the controversial move. The region was cut off from the world. The internet, cell phone and landline service, and cable TV were shut down, and Kashmir’s contact with the outside world has been limited since. Frequent detentions of outspoken opponents have occurred, including top Kashmiri political figures Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah. They are believed to have been outspoken against the repeal of Article 370, but information from Kashmir is still limited. Following the second requirement cited by Levitsky and Ziblatt, this media blackout has essentially removed all inner opposition and limited the outside opposition’s access to news.
The debate over Kashmir and its status has endured for many years and will continue to be a point of contention in the region. But as the biggest democracy in the world, the Indian Government’s recent actions to consolidate their power in Kashmir raises many questions. By ignoring the population’s desires, the democratic process erodes and leads to further issues. Levitsky and Ziblatt’s formula fits closely with the repeal of Article 370, and subsequent media blackout and arrests, which should be a sign to worry. Does this exertion of power in Kashmir bode unwell for the future of India as a whole? This could embolden a ruling party to push harder on the democratic systems put in place to protect the people, and the results would set an unwelcome precedent for other democracies.