current affairs MCQ #12489

The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) in Indian-administered Kashmir has historically refused to participate in Indian electoral processes. A political analyst evaluates whether this strategy has been effective. Which assessment best captures the diplomatic consequence of APHC's electoral boycott strategy?

current affairs MCQ #12489

  1. Question 1

    Q1. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) in Indian-administered Kashmir has historically refused to participate in Indian electoral processes. A political analyst evaluates whether this strategy has been effective. Which assessment best captures the diplomatic consequence of APHC's electoral boycott strategy?

    • A) The boycott preserved the Hurriyat's legitimacy as a resistance movement and kept international focus on the unresolved political question, though it limited their ability to shape governance outcomes from within
    • B) The boycott was counterproductive because it allowed pro-India parties to consolidate power and reduced international sympathy for the Kashmiri cause
    • C) The boycott succeeded in bringing India to the negotiating table with the Hurriyat as the sole legitimate representative of Kashmiris
    • D) The boycott strategy was mandated by UN Resolution 47 as a condition for the plebiscite process to remain valid

    Answer: The boycott preserved the Hurriyat's legitimacy as a resistance movement and kept international focus on the unresolved political question, though it limited their ability to shape governance outcomes from within

    Explanation: The APHC's consistent electoral boycott preserved its standing as an authentic resistance movement refusing to legitimise Indian sovereignty over Kashmir, keeping alive the political question of self-determination in international discourse.