J&K Delimitation: Nothing ‘demographic’ about it!

Shakir Mir

The demarcation of new electoral boundaries in Kashmir was already a contentious exercise, to begin with. Before the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, efforts to delimit the electoral constituencies in the former state were governed under the Jammu & Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957. Indeed, as per this law, the number of Assembly seats in Jammu & Kashmir was increased from 75 to 87 in 1995.

The basis for this redistricting was the population census of 1981, because the count in the year 1991 could not take place amid the raging insurgency and breakdown of state machinery.

In 2002, the ruling National Conference (NC) put a freeze on any new carving up of electoral units. The move was supposed to mirror a similar moratorium put in place across the rest of the country. It may have caused annoyance to a few Jammu-based parties who dragged the matter to the Supreme Court, but much to their disappointment, the judiciary upheld the freeze.

A Complex Bureaucratic Exercise

In August 2019, however, Article 370, the mother lode for all Jammu & Kashmir- specific laws, was extinguished, and almost all its provisions were rendered inactive, including the one that underwrote the pause on further delimitation. The new Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, made it necessary to have expanded electoral constituencies. The rules mandated the new 83-seat Assembly (the remaining four seats went to the Union Territory of Ladakh) to have 90 seats in total. The meaty part of the delimitation was to oversee how these seven additional seats would be redistributed.

There are further layers to this dizzyingly complex bureaucratic pursuit. The delimitation of Jammu & Kashmir was supposed to be held alongside similar redistribution of Assembly seats for the four northeastern states. But surprisingly, in March, as the Commission was granted a one-year extension to file its report, the other four states were withdrawn from its purview. There were allegations that such an exercise in these states was “unconstitutional and illegal”. Questions have since been raised, that why what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

That is because Jammu, while having a smaller population than Kashmir, has a larger land area.

‘Participation Doesn’t Matter’: J&K Parties

Even the official release from the Commission on Monday notes, “Section 9 (1) (a) of Delimitation Act, 2002, read with Section 60 (2) (b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which specifies that all constituencies shall, as far as practicable, be geographically compact areas, and regard shall be had to physical features, existing boundaries of administrative units, facilities of communications and public conveniences.

Earlier this year, Sushil Chandra, the Chief Election Commissioner of India, also noted, “Though the population forms the base (for delimitation), the Commission shall take into account constituencies’ practicality, geographical compatibility, topography, physical features, means of communication and convenience available.”

However, legal experts tend to look askance at this line of reasoning. “Population is always the main criteria. Others are secondary factors,” said Dr Sheikh Showkat, a legal scholar. “But it appears as though their plan is to disempower the majority community of Jammu & Kashmir. Even the legal mechanisms behind the exercise are malafide.” A few days ago, the National Conference, in a surprise move, announced its willingness to participate in the scheduled meeting of the Delimitation Commission, a major departure from its long-held belief that any parleys on the redrawing the Assembly units “will be tantamount to accepting the events of 5 August 2019, which the NC is unwilling to do”.

The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has consistently refused to participate in the meetings, saying that the Commission “lacks constitutional and legal mandate” and is geared to accelerate the political “disempowerment” of the people in Kashmir.

The abstinence from the Commission’s meetings was also justified by the parties on the grounds that their participation “would not matter”. The PDP reasoned that the party at present had no incumbent Member of Parliament (MP) or a Member of Legislative Assembly. “The way the Commission has been designed, only the elected representatives are entitled to participate in the exercise,” it said.

As for those parties who do have elected members, there’s a separate predicament. Here’s an interesting observation by Hasnain Masoodi, who is one of NC’s three MPs from Kashmir. “We are associate members in the C