First election in a decade is planned in Indian-administered Kashmir. Here’s what to know

An elderly Kashmiri woman looks on as a paramilitary soldier guard during the door-to -door election campaigning by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate ahead of the Jammu and Kashmir state assembly elections, in Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir on August 29, 2024. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 30 August 2024
Follow

First election in a decade is planned in Indian-administered Kashmir. Here’s what to know

  • Opposition Congress party has formed alliance with National Conference, the region’s largest pro-India Kashmiri political party
  • Modi’s BJP has a weak political base in the Kashmir Valley, the heartland of decades of anti-India rebellion, while it is strong in Jammu

SRINAGAR: Residents of Indian-administered Kashmir are gearing up for their first regional election in a decade that will allow them to have their own truncated government, also known as a local assembly, instead of remaining under New Delhi’s direct rule.
Muslim-majority Kashmir is divided between nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan and claimed in its entirety by both. The Indian-administered part has been on edge since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government ended its special status in 2019 and also scrapped its statehood.
The three-phased polls will take place amid a sharp rise in rebel attacks on government forces in parts of Hindu-dominated Jammu areas that have remained relatively peaceful in the three decades of armed rebellion against Indian rule.
With campaigning picking up in the runup to the election, India’s main opposition Congress party has formed an alliance to jointly seek the vote with the National Conference, the region’s largest pro-India Kashmiri political party. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party has a weak political base in the Kashmir Valley, the heartland of decades of anti-India rebellion, while it is strong in Jammu.
Here is what you need to know about the coming election:
The history of disputed Kashmir
Kashmir’s future was left unresolved at the end of British colonial rule in 1947 when the Indian subcontinent was divided into predominantly Hindu India and mainly Muslim Pakistan. Pakistan has long pushed for the right to self-determination under a UN resolution passed in 1948, which called for a referendum on whether Kashmiris wanted to merge with either country.
Militants in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir have been fighting New Delhi’s rule since 1989, while India insists the Kashmir militancy is Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, a charge Islamabad denies. Tens of thousands of civilians, rebels and government forces have been killed in the conflict which most Kashmiri Muslims consider a legitimate struggle for freedom.




In this file photograph, taken on May 31, 2019, Kashmiri protesters throw bricks and rocks at an armored vehicle of Indian police during a protest in Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir. (AP/File) 

What is the current status of the region?
Indian-administered Kashmir has been without a local government since 2018 when India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party ended its support to the local Kashmiri People’s Democratic Party, bringing down the coalition government and causing the assembly to dissolve. A year later, Modi’s government revoked the region’s semi-autonomy and downgraded it to a federally controlled territory.
As a result, Indian-held Kashmir lost its flag, criminal code, constitution and inherited protections on land and jobs. It was also divided into two federal territories, Ladakh and Jammu-Kashmir, ruled directly by New Delhi, allowing it to appoint an administrator to run it along unelected government officials.
Since then, a slew of legal and administrative changes have been installed without public input, much to the anger of the region’s people whose civil liberties have also been curbed and media intimidated.
Indian officials have repeatedly said that the move — to shape what it calls “Naya Kashmir,” or a “new Kashmir” — was necessary to tackle separatism, foster greater economic development and fully integrate the region into the country.
Even after the election, India’s federal government will still make the decisions
The election will take place between Sept. 18 and Oct. 1, and votes are set to be counted on Oct. 4.




Ashok Bhat, left, a candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) talks to a voter, while campaigning door-to-door ahead of the Jammu and Kashmir state assembly elections, in Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir on August 29, 2024. (AP)

In theory, the polls will see a transition of power from New Delhi to a newly elected local assembly with a chief minister serving as the region’s top elected official with a council of ministers, a similar setup to before 2018.
But the new polls will hardly give the new government any legislative powers as Indian-controlled Kashmir will continue to be a “Union Territory” — a region directly controlled by the federal government — with India’s parliament remaining as the region’s legislator. The elected assembly will only have nominal control over education and culture.
Kashmir’s statehood status has to be restored for the new government to have power. Even Kashmiri pro-India parties, like the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party, have vowed to politically and legally fight for the return of Kashmir’s semi-autonomy.
How do Kashmir residents view the upcoming election?
Many are indifferent, while some believe their vote could be a way to express deep resentment of Modi’s party. Most Muslim residents of the region want independence from India or unification with Pakistan.




National Conference (NC) President Farooq Abdullah, center, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leader Mehbooba Mufti, second right, and other leaders sit during an all parties meeting on restoration of the special status that was stripped last year from Indian-administered Kashmir, in Srinagar. (AP)

However, Kashmir’s pro-India political elite, many of whom have been jailed for allegedly disrupting peace and slapped with corruption cases in 2019, see an opportunity in these elections to politically oppose the changes by India’s ruling party.
Historically, elections in Indian-held Kashmir have remained a sensitive issue, with many believing that they have been rigged multiple times in favor of the region’s pro-India politicians.
Previous elections have seen Kashmiri Muslim separatist leaders who challenge India’s sovereignty over the region call for a boycott of the vote, calling it an illegitimate exercise under military occupation.


Serbia’s President Vucic cuts short US visit and returns home after falling ill

Updated 55 min 19 sec ago
Follow

Serbia’s President Vucic cuts short US visit and returns home after falling ill

  • Vucic suddenly fell ill during a meeting in the US
  • He was admitted to the Belgrade Military Hospital upon arrival

BELGRADE: Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic has cut short a visit to the United States and returned to Serbia over an unspecified health emergency, state RTS television reported on Saturday.
Vucic suddenly fell ill during a meeting in the US and decided to return home after consulting doctors, the report said. He was admitted to the Belgrade Military Hospital upon arrival, it added.
Vucic was previously in Miami, Florida, where he had met with former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. Vucic had said he also was hoping to meet with US President Donald Trump.
Richard Grenell, US presidential envoy for special missions, expressed hope that Vucic would recover. “Sorry to miss you but hope all is ok,” Grenell wrote on X.
It was not immediately clear what happened and Vucic’s office said they will inform the public later. Vucic, 55, is known to have high blood pressure.
Serbia’s populist leader also has said he would travel to Russia later this month to attend a Victory Day parade in Moscow, despite warnings from European Union officials that this could affect Serbia’s bid to join the bloc.


A notorious drug gang is in the crosshairs of a French police investigation of prison attacks

Updated 03 May 2025
Follow

A notorious drug gang is in the crosshairs of a French police investigation of prison attacks

  • Paris prosecutor Laure Beccuau said one of the suspected organizers of last month’s prison attacks claims to have ties with the DZ Mafia
  • The Paris prosecutor said 21 people detained for suspected involvement

PARIS: Anti-organized crime specialist investigators probing a wave of attacks on prisons and prison staff in France are looking at the possible involvement of a notorious drug cartel, the Paris prosecutor said Saturday.
The so-called DZ Mafia is suspected of being one of the main narco-trafficking networks working out of the southern French port city of Marseille, which has a long history as a hub for the drug trade and banditry associated with it.
Paris prosecutor Laure Beccuau said at a news conference Saturday that one of the suspected organizers of last month’s prison attacks claims to have ties with the DZ Mafia. She said police investigators will examine “the real or supposed influence of the DZ Mafia” in the violence.
Several prisons were targeted by gunfire and arson, including attacks on prison workers’ homes and on cars at a prison service school, in the Paris area and elsewhere, the prosecutor said.
The letters “DDPF” were graffitied on some targets, believed to stand for “défense des prisonniers français,” which translates as “defense of French prisoners.”
The Paris prosecutor said 21 people detained for suspected involvement in the violence have been handed preliminary charges for attempted murder and other alleged crimes.
French authorities in recent months have stepped up policing against drug trafficking, concerned about growing cocaine use in France and violence associated with the trafficking of that and other drugs.


Waltz ouster adds to tumult in Trump’s national security team but consolidates power in fewer hands

Updated 03 May 2025
Follow

Waltz ouster adds to tumult in Trump’s national security team but consolidates power in fewer hands

  • The staff shake-up comes as the administration confronts foreign policy issues
  • The Pentagon, too, has been a source of tumult, with Hegseth directing firings of top military officers and now ousting his own top civilian advisers in response to leak allegations

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump’s removal of national security adviser Mike Waltz brings further disruption to a national security team that has already endured scrutiny over using the Signal messaging app to discuss sensitive military operations as well as mounting questions over the leadership of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the firing of the four-star general who led the National Security Agency.
The staff shake-up comes as the administration confronts foreign policy issues that include Iran’s rapidly advancing nuclear ambitions, a trade fight with China and conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine that have defied easy resolutions despite Trump’s initial confidence that he could settle both wars quickly.
But Waltz’s departure also presents an opportunity for Trump to consolidate foreign policy in just a few hands, with the Republican president asserting even more power over decision-making and relying on a select group of people who have entirely embraced his “America First” agenda.
Those influential voices include special envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who on Thursday was named to replace Waltz on an acting basis while Waltz was nominated as the US ambassador to the United Nations.
“I would think he has just about what he wants” in terms of consolidated power, said William Banks, founding director of what is now called the Syracuse University Institute for Security Policy and Law. “There aren’t many outliers.”
Gaining Trump’s confidence or losing it
Rubio may once have seemed an unlikely choice for such prominent positions given that the onetime Trump rival and hawkish conservative was derided by Trump as “Little Marco” during the 2016 presidential campaign.
But since then, the former Florida senator has proved adept at aligning himself with Trump’s foreign policy positions, presiding over a massive overhaul of the State Department while steering clear of some of the pitfalls that other national security leaders have encountered.
Waltz, for instance, faced intense criticism in March after revelations that he added journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to a private text chain on an encrypted messaging app that was used to discuss planning for an airstrike against Houthi militants in Yemen.
He also was considered to be part of a neoconservative wing of the Republican Party that had supported the war in Iraq and other US military interventions abroad, including in Syria and Libya, that have now found disfavor in today’s GOP. The former Florida congressman has advocated for further diplomatically isolating Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has viewed at moments with admiration.
The Pentagon, too, has been a source of tumult, with Hegseth directing firings of top military officers and now ousting his own top civilian advisers in response to leak allegations. There are now multiple vacancies in key positions at a critical time for the military. Other missteps have included a broad edict for the military services to erase images celebrating diversity, leading to the brief removal of online content of prominent figures such as Jackie Robinson and causing a public outcry.
Reports of Elon Musk being offering a classified Pentagon briefing on China and Hegseth posting airstrike plans in two Signal chats with dozens of people have spurred calls for the defense secretary’s firing. But Trump has stood by him.
Trump’s national security team could be “charitably” described as “a work in progress,” said Daniel Fried, a former US ambassador to Poland and a National Security Council official under both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, citing what he said were concerns about coordination and portfolios.
“I’m not saying that the Trump foreign policy team is doomed. But the lack of coordination, the lack of consistency, the sense of chaotic decision-making isn’t just a media myth,” Fried said.
Trump’s approach to foreign policy
The national security adviser post, established in 1953, matters to the functioning of a cohesive government. That official is intended to serve as a hub in coordinating information, soliciting advice among agencies and developing policy recommendations for the president.
But the argument for balance in policymaking is unlikely to resonate with Trump. Over the course of his career, he has claimed expert knowledge on everything from Islamic militants to taxes and technology.
Heather Conley, a former deputy assistant secretary of state during the George W. Bush administration, said Trump often gives greater weight to advice and recommendations from television and social media than his senior advisers.
“There is very little role for policy coordination because the president is clearly setting the policy on a daily, hourly basis,” Conley said.
The NSC didn’t immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
Even as Trump has elevated Rubio, there are signs that Trump also has welcomed the input of a far-less conventional source: far-right activist Laura Loomer.
Last month, she appeared to take credit for Trump’s firing of Air Force Gen. Tim Haugh as head of the NSA and the Pentagon’s Cyber Command after a 33-year career in intelligence and cyber operations. Loomer said she had raised questions to Trump about Haugh’s ties to retired Gen. Mark Milley, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Trump’s first term but later became a critic, and she questioned Haugh’s loyalty.
On Friday, Loomer said she recommended to Trump in a private meeting last month that he remove Waltz from his job.
Changes from the first Trump administration
The Waltz ouster notwithstanding, Trump has tried to project a more ordered administration than during his first term. Those four years were marked by big personnel changes among his national security leadership and bitter disagreements with officials he felt were trying to rein him in or box in his choices.
He replaced three national security advisers, and fired an FBI director and secretary of state. He clashed with one defense secretary who resigned after differing with Trump over the abrupt withdrawal of US troops from Syria and dismissed another who broke with him over using the military during racial justice protests in 2020.
The removal of a national security adviser with views not in perfect alignment with his own may help free Trump from some of the constraints he felt from government agencies in his first term.
Yet at a moment when Trump is trying to find endgames to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza while trying to negotiate an Iran nuclear deal and waging a global tariff war, leaning on Rubio to serve in both roles may be suboptimal.
Appearing Thursday night on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Rubio centered his comments on the foreign policy news of the day — including the US role in trying to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine — rather than on a leadership transition that now has him juggling two major positions.
“The fact that Rubio has multiple titles may mean that his stock is rising, but not necessarily,” Fried said. “And that’s part of the problem. If it’s not clear who is in charge and it’s not clear where you go to get answers, that’s not a recipe for leverage. It’s a recipe for uncertainty and paralysis.”


Kremlin calls Ukrainian response to Putin’s ceasefire offer ambiguous, calls for clarity

Updated 03 May 2025
Follow

Kremlin calls Ukrainian response to Putin’s ceasefire offer ambiguous, calls for clarity

  • Zelensky also said that Ukraine, given the continued war with Russia, could not guarantee the safety of any foreign dignitaries who came to Moscow for the May 9 parade
  • Russia’s Foreign Ministry said his comments amounted to a threat

MOSCOW: The Kremlin said on Saturday it wanted a definitive response from Ukraine to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer of a three-day ceasefire next week, criticizing the reaction so far as ambiguous and historically wrong.
Putin on Monday declared a three-day ceasefire to mark the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Soviet Union and its allies over Nazi Germany in World War Two.
The Kremlin said the 72-hour ceasefire would run on May 8, May 9 — when Putin will host international leaders on Moscow’s Red Square, including Chinese President Xi Jinping — and May 10.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appeared to rule out such a brief ceasefire earlier on Saturday, saying he was only ready to sign up to a ceasefire that would last at least 30 days, an idea Putin has said needs a lot of work before it could become a reality.
Zelensky also said that Ukraine, given the continued war with Russia, could not guarantee the safety of any foreign dignitaries who came to Moscow for the May 9 parade.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry said his comments amounted to a threat, while Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, said nobody could guarantee that the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv would survive to see May 10 if Ukraine attacked Moscow during the May 9 celebrations.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov convened a special conference call after Zelensky’s comments.
He told reporters that Putin’s three-day offer had been a test to assess Kyiv’s readiness to search for a peaceful settlement to end the war.
“The reaction of the Ukrainian authorities to Russia’s initiative to introduce a ceasefire is a test of Ukraine’s readiness for peace. And we will, of course, await not ambiguous but definitive statements and, most importantly, actions aimed at de-escalating the conflict over the public holidays,” Peskov said.
He accused the Ukrainian authorities of espousing “neo-Nazism,” an allegation Kyiv has repeatedly rejected as false, and of not considering the victory over Nazi Germany to be important enough to mark properly.
Peskov also commented on media reports that Ukrainian soldiers will take part in World War Two commemorations in Britain, calling the move “sacrilege.”


Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wins a second three-year term

Updated 22 min 19 sec ago
Follow

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wins a second three-year term

  • Opposition leader Peter Dutton conceded defeat in Saturday’s election
  • The Australian Electoral Commission’s projections gave Albanese’s ruling center-left Labour Party 70 seats

MELBOURNE: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has become the first Australian prime minister to win a second consecutive three-year term in 21 years.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton conceded defeat in Saturday’s election, saying, “We didn’t do well enough during this campaign, that much is obvious tonight, and I accept full responsibility for that.”
“Earlier on, I called the prime minister to congratulate him on his success tonight. It’s a historic occasion for the Labour Party and we recognize that,” he added.
The Australian Electoral Commission’s projections gave Albanese’s ruling center-left Labour Party 70 seats and the conservative opposition coalition 24 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, the lower chamber where parties need a majority to form governments. Unaligned minor parties and independent candidates appeared likely to win 13 seats.
Australian Broadcasting Corp. respected election analyst Antony Green predicted Labor would win 76 seats, the coalition 36 and unaligned lawmakers 13. Green said Labor would form a majority or minority government and that the coalition had no hope of forming even a minority government.
Energy policy and inflation have been major issues in the campaign, with both sides agreeing the country faces a cost of living crisis.
Opposition leader branded ‘DOGE-y Dutton’
Dutton’s conservative Liberal Party blames government waste for fueling inflation and increasing interest rates, and has pledged to ax more than one in five public service jobs to reduce government spending.
While both say the country should reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Dutton argues that relying on more nuclear power instead of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind turbines would deliver less expensive electricity.
The ruling center-left Labour Party has branded the opposition leader “DOGE-y Dutton” and accused his party of mimicking US President Donald Trump and his Department of Government Efficiency.
Labor argues Dutton’s administration would slash services to pay for its nuclear ambitions.
“We’ve seen the attempt to run American-style politics here of division and pitting Australians against each other and I think that’s not the Australian way,” Albanese said.
Albanese also noted that his government had improved relations with China, which removed a series of official and unofficial trade barriers that had cost Australian exporters 20 billion Australian dollars ($13 billion) a year since Labor came to power in 2022.
A cost of living crisis as the country faces generational change
The election is taking place against a backdrop of what both sides of politics describe as a cost of living crisis.
Foodbank Australia, the nation’s largest food relief charity, reported 3.4 million households in the country of 27 million people experienced food insecurity last year.
That meant Australians were skipping meals, eating less or worrying about running out of food before they could afford to buy more.
The central bank reduced its benchmark cash interest rate by a quarter percentage point in February to 4.1 percent in an indication that the worst of the financial hardship had passed. The rate is widely expected to be cut again at the bank’s next board meeting on May 20, this time to encourage investment amid the international economic uncertainty generated by Trump’s tariff policies.
Both campaigns have focused on Australia’s changing demographics. The election is the first in Australia in which Baby Boomers, born between born between the end of World War II and 1964, are outnumbered by younger voters.
Both campaigns promised policies to help first-home buyers buy into a property market that is too expensive for many.
The election could produce a minority government
Going into the election, Labor held a narrow majority of 78 seats in a 151-seat House of Representatives. There will be 150 seats in the next parliament due to redistributions.
A loss of more than two seats could force Labor to attempt to form a minority government with the support of unaligned lawmakers.
There was a minority government after the 2010 election, and the last one before that was during World War II.
The last time neither party won a majority, it took 17 days after the polls closed before key independent lawmakers announced they would support a Labor administration.