The promises of peace in Kashmir

While the appointment of an interlocutor has generated hope, a serious effort at peace is not possible unless there is some evidence of retreat by the Indian Army, writes

While the appointment of an interlocutor has generated hope, a serious effort at peace is not possible unless there is some evidence of retreat by the Indian Army, writes ADITI PHADNIS

In August this year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi signalled a change in his thinking on Kashmir. In his Red Fort address, along with the building of a ‘new India’, he said the problems ailing Kashmir would only be resolved by embracing Kashmiris, not through abusive language or bullets. “Na goli se, na gaali se, Kashmir ki samasya suljhegi gale lagaane se,” the PM said.

Many — including some outspoken critics of the government — endorsed the Prime Minister’s speech and suggested a way forward. The Concerned Citizens Group, led by activist Sushobha Barve, which has former finance and foreign minister Yashwant Sinha as one of its members, said Indians and Kashmiris alike saw hope in the Bharatiya Janata Party’s new positive policy towards Kashmiri citizens. “While looking forward to a concrete follow up, we would like to suggest that in order to operationalise the wellintentioned statements that have so eloquently been made, it is now necessary for the government to clearly identify the stakeholders, announce the name of an authorised interlocutor, set a timeframe for the beginning and conduct of the dialogue process and start it as soon as possible….Despite deep scepticism that has taken hold of their minds, the encouraging statements by the PM, Home Minister and others hold promise for the Kashmiris. The present opportunity should not be wasted. And, therefore, it is our fervent appeal to the government to quickly act definitively on the sentiments expressed in a time-bound manner,” a statement signed by Sinha, among others, said.

After months of sterility at best and heavyhanded action at worst, the Prime Minister’s statement was like a window opening in a dark room. In the midst of a conversation between India and Kashmir, which seemed to consist chiefly of sounds of gunfire and doors slamming shut, the mood could be summed up in one word: despair. Top bureaucrat Wajahat Habibullah wrote: “I am convinced, as I enter the twilight of my life, that my life’s mission to win over the people of Kashmir for India is lost, irretrievably.” Former Home Minister P Chidambaram said, without efforts at exculpation: “Every government in J&K and every government at the Centre has responded to the challenge with more warnings, more troops and more laws. A muscular policy will not help — tough talk by ministers, dire warnings by the Army Chief, deploying more troops or killing protesters…”. Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh emerged from his status of an observer to lead a Congress team to Kashmir. Soon after, Congressmen began saying that things were so bad in Kashmir that nothing short of Central rule would control the slide.

Almost three months after the 15 August speech, an interlocutor has now been appointed. Dineshwar Sharma, formerly of the Intelligence Bureau, has been tasked with “sustained dialogue” with all stakeholders in Jammu and Kashmir — and he is free to decide who the stakeholders are. Once the embodiment of the muscular Indian state, Sharma is now retired. Maybe that makes him a little less muscular.

But there’s no doubt that in the government there has been some re-thinking on what is working in Jammu and Kashmir and what isn’t. This, in itself, has created some excitement. Deep divisions That the average young Kashmiri can take or leave India and Indians — but that he hates the Indian state with a passion — is roughly what describes the mood in the state. Politicians — the practical ones, who have to win and lose elections, not the lynch-mob variety like Pravin Togadia of the Vishva Hindu Parishad who believe the only solution is to carpet bomb the valley, cleanse it and begin afresh — say, cutting across party lines, that unless there is some evidence of retreat by the Indian state, there can be no change in Kashmir. Retreat means the army and paramilitary forces have to vacate orchards and schools, the state government has to work to restore the morale and power of the state police, and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) has to be reviewed.

Chief of Army Staff Gen Bipin Rawat ( below) has said clearly that the army will continue its operations in the state as before, interlocutor or no interlocutor