Good post regarding Kashmir, Hawkmoon. Here is one journalist's suggestion (dated May 29, 2000). Circumstances have changed a little bit since then.
Kashmir: How to begin?
rediff.com
The talks on Kashmir are of little use if there is no peace in the State. This is what I told Yasin Malik, Kashmir's youthful leader, when we met soon after his release from jail. He was the first to have raised the gun. But he abjured violence some years ago and has now even become a vegetarian. He calls himself a follower of Mahatma Gandhi.
I placed before Pakistan Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar at Islamabad the same proposal regarding peace a few weeks ago. He did not say 'no.' But he wanted the suggestion to come through official channels as if I was carrying a message from the Atal Behari Vajpayee government. The point I was making was probably lost on him.
The recent round of killings, including that of a Jammu and Kashmir minister, indicates that the idea of peace is yet to seep into the minds of militants and those who are sustaining them. If the press reports are correct, the Hurriyat too has discussed peace as one of the prerequisites for holding talks at its marathon meetings. Some intellectuals from Pakistan have also supported the move that all guns, direct or indirect, open or secret, should stop firing for creating an atmosphere of peace.
True, there is much ado about parleys on Kashmir, but without anything in substance. Home Minister L K Advani has said that the government favours talks with "the alienated members of the society, particularly the youth." Leaders in Kashmir, especially from the Hurriyat, have welcomed the 'offer.' The matter rests at that.
This is, however, not the first time that such words have been said and hopes built. The difference between then and now is that the atmosphere is fraught with so much distrust that even honest brokers are suspect. Most militants are outsiders and the security forces are becoming more ruthless under pressure. And people, although exasperated, have become indifferent as they have learnt to live with the situation. A new approach is necessary.
It is a healthy development that New Delhi has realised, rather belatedly, that it should talk to "its own Kashmiris." But it is still stuck at a solution within the Constitution. It is probably difficult for the BJP, which leads the government, to change. The abrogation of Article 370, that gives special status to Kashmir, is on the party's agenda.
But it is strange the BJP should still plug the line which Advani seems to have forsaken. When he said in Parliament that his government was prepared for a solution within the parameters of the Constitution, he more or less accepted Article 370 and the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
To break the ice, Advani could have gone further and said that any settlement within the Indian territory will be acceptable, even if it is outside the Constitution. When the entire document is under review, the Constitution has lost its sanctity. What is sacrosanct is the country's territorial integrity.
If the Hurriyat leaders are the ones Advani has in mind for talks, he should have seen to their care in jail. According to Yasin, they were treated worse than criminals. Even his sister was not allowed to meet him when he was seriously ill. That the Hurriyat leaders were detained under the orders of the Farooq Abdullah government does not absolve the Centre of its negligence or complicity. Even Yasin's medical certificate was fudged to show that he did not require any special treatment for his heart.
This should not, however, embitter the Hurriyat. Whichever the government, the system takes over. The bureaucracy and intelligence agencies have the mindset of the British days. They have not changed. Political prisoners are treated in the same manner as they were during the Raj. The Kashmir problem should not, however, be linked with the deficiencies in jail.
How to clear the decks for talks is the problem. Just as the government of India has to get out of the South Block-made status quo syndrome, the Hurriyat too has to face reality. The reality is that the situation in the State has got communalised as well as regionalised. The success of the talks will depend on the extent to which the Hurriyat is willing to mend the situation.
"If you want to save Jammu and Kashmir as an entity, you should revive the Kashmiriyat, the state's secular ethos." This was my advice to Yasin. He seemed to agree with me. However, Hurriyat chief Gilani has broached the proposal of dividing the state into three parts: Jammu, Ladakh and the Valley. True, his thinking is not shared by many Hurriyat leaders. But Yasin, Umer Farooq or someone else should have rejected the proposal and said that Gilani's views were his own. Otherwise, it is being taken that the present stand of the Hurriyat is in line with what Gilani has said.
Gilani is a hardliner. But his utility is that he is acceptable to Islamabad. This may be the reason why its foreign office spokesman said the other day that Pakistan would accept whatever solution was reached between the government of India and the Hurriyat. The statement has in any way obviated the insistence by the Hurriyat to have the presence of Islamabad during the talks on the settlement.
However acceptable the Hurriyat may be in Pakistan, it has to put its act together in India. It has very few supporters in the country. In fact, it still has more contacts with foreign missions than with the Indian parliamentarians. Whatever the changes in the Constitution for any settlement, it will have to be passed by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
Apart from some worn out slogans in place of demands, there is nothing in the Hurriyat case which anyone can bite on. The right to self-determination is old hat. It does not go down well in India. Even the world powers are veering round to the viewpoint that a plebiscite to decide the fate of the state is outdated and it does not fit into the exigencies of the situation.
This argument may not be acceptable to the Hurriyat but it must ask itself: "Does it want to represent the state or a part of it, the Valley?" So far the Hurriyat is linked with the Valley. But if it wants to expand its horizons, it has to fight against communal or regional elements. It should unequivocally stand on the side of secularism.
However, the record of both Gilani and Hurriyat's spokesman Abdul Ghani Bhat has not been clean in this respect. They have been opposed to the return of Kashmiri Pandits to the Valley until the overall problem of Kashmir is solved.
The talks with the government of India do not mean that Pakistan will be kept out of the picture. Both the Shimla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration say that New Delhi and Islamabad will hold talks for "a final settlement." But it is neither practical nor politic to touch the three points at the same time: New Delhi, Islamabad and Srinagar.
A beginning between New Delhi and Srinagar is easier and more tractable. And Srinagar does not mean the Hurriyat alone. Farooq Abdullah's National Conference, Shabir Ahmad Shah's People's Democratic Freedom Party and Mehbooba Mufti's People's Democratic Party have to be associated with the talks at some stage. The purpose is to break the imbroglio and this requires everyone's cooperation.
Kuldip Nayar |
