For over six decades all types of hurdles were being created to deny a soldier his fundamental right to cast his vote. First, he could cast his vote only at his permanent place of residence. Since that was impractical, he was told to avail postal ballot facility. As per the Representation of Peoples Acts, 1950 and 1951, the provision of casting vote through postal ballot is applicable to Indians living abroad. In any case, to traverse the route designed for a soldier’s vote, through postal ballot system, was such that it never reached in time to be counted. Only around 7% votes, cast through postal ballot, came to be counted.
When these flaws were pointed out to the Election Commission, it came up with the proposal of ‘proxy voting’ for soldiers. Little did it realise that this mode of casting vote was applicable only to those posted abroad and ones under preventive detention. A soldier’s life in India is akin to that of a gypsy. He is seldom at a place for more than two years, and when he is in field area his family is at some peace station in separate family accommodation with children in the local school. So he spends his leave with his family and rarely visits his permanent place of residence.
SC RULING
Finally, the Supreme Court in 2014 ruled that soldiers could cast their vote at the place of posting. Here again the bureaucracy tried to introduce one more hurdle in that a stay of minimum three years at the place of posting was made a qualifying condition, knowing full well that hardly any soldier ever stays at the same location for more than two years or so. So this ploy of the bureaucracy also did not work.
A soldier may be at a station for two years or so, but X number of soldiers are permanently located at that station, (and have what is termed as, ‘Service Qualification,’ in the Representation of Peoples Act as residents of that place–cantonment). So this group of soldiers (X number) as such, are very much interested in the development and in all such activities the elected member of a state assembly and Parliament is expected to carry out in that area. That is the rationale for a soldier to cast his vote at the place of his posting.
Bulk of the Indian army is stationed in Jammu and Kashmir and the North East and certainly not by its own volition. Indian army has been at war with insurgency for nearly six decades in the North East and manning the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir since 1949 and combating terrorism from 1989 onwards. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was promulgated to give the military necessary legal backing for conducting anti-insurgency and antiterrorist operations in these two regions.
Insurgency and terrorist activities require sympathy and support of local population for sustenance. At the root of anti-India attitude of locals is poor administration and rampant corruption and little economic development. Military, besides fighting insurgents and terrorists in these areas has been providing a sense of security to the local population. It has as much at stake as any other resident of these areas in good civil administration and stable and right political establishment.
Military personnel in these areas exercised their franchise in the best interest of the region and the country. It is the fringe elements, sponsored and financially sustained by foreign powers that have been raising their voice against deployment of the military and the connected AFSPA and lately their voting rights.
NOT IN NATIONAL INTEREST
Military in these disturbed regions without the support of AFSPA will be toothless, and that is exactly what suits these anti-national elements. The latest move to deny a soldier his right to cast his vote in Jammu and Kashmir and the North East, in which the Centre appears to be the prime mover, is yet another attempt to scuttle soldier’s fundamental right to cast his vote and the move is decidedly not in the best national interest.
The argument that a soldier casting his vote in these areas will change the demography of the place and that it will also disclose the strength of the military in these areas, and this will compromise security, is fallacious. A country on the path of economic growth will see mass migrations to areas where jobs are available and that would constantly keep altering the demographic pattern of various regions and there is nothing wrong in this.
According to some estimates, three crore Bangladeshis have crossed over to India, changing the demography in many areas, particularly of Assam. When Pandits were driven out of the valley, did it not change the demography of the valley and what did the government and the Supreme Court do to restore the earlier pattern?
So why this singular move to deny voting rights to own soldiers while they are posted in Jammu and Kashmir and the North East. It is a case of the government cutting the nose to spite its own face. The Supreme Court has directed that in this case, the government is to consult the Election Commission and other stakeholders. The government needs to know that military is the principal stakeholder in this case.
LT GEN HARWANT SINGH (RETD) gen_harwant@hotmail.com The writer is a former deputy chief of the army staff and an expert on defence matters. The views expressed are personal