April had all the makings of a momentous chapter in the tragic saga of Jammu & Kashmir: A primeministerial visit, a new interlocutor to kickstart an internal dialogue and renewed interest of theinternational community (read USA).
It’s now May and time to take stock. Expectations were at their highest in the valley. Why? Simple: a PMwho famously promised from the ramparts of Red Fort to not repeat past mistakes, and a Chief Minister who,before assuming office, made all the right noises. We in Kashmir were led to expect the ‘mother of allpackages’ to go along with the N.N. Vohra initiative. A lot was read into the timing of Vohra’s visit afew days after the PM's.
What came of the visit? It seems to have been a repeat of the Kashmir Tango, one step forward and two stepsback. The PM took credit for organising ‘free and fair elections’, and demolished one of the arguments tocounter the claim that the people of J&K have never been given their promised plebiscite forself-determination.
As minister in the Vajpayee Govt whenever I was asked about self-determination the answer always was thatthe people in J&K, unlike those in PoK, have endorsed accession. First through the Constituent Assembly,which ratified the state’s constitution and then in successive elections freely and fairly. All of a suddenthis argument has been turned on its head by statements from the PM and the deputy PM. How we are now going tocounter propaganda about the denial of a plebiscite remains to be seen.
If this is the first free and fair election, what exactly have we been doing for the last 55 years? Can webe told which of the previous elections were free and fair? Was, for example, the 1996 election held underPresident’s rule, with election staff from outside the state, free and fair? If not, what were we doingselling that election to the international community as an answer to Pakistani propaganda? Was the recentelection considered free and fair because the National Conference lost? Would the PM have been as forcefulabout the elections if the NC had won the elections?
While I am all for visits of PM without the customary packages, in this case the people had been led toexpect one. In fact the biggest attractions to the Srinagar rally was the promise of a massive employmentpackage. The absence of one along with the absence of any announcement regarding a political initiative tokickstart the Vohra talks probably explains the sense of gloom among participants as they streamed out fromthe venue.
It seems that Mufti Sayeed is not only able to stop the rains when he pleases, he can also stop the PM fromraising issues that might harm his political base. The absence of any mention to the Nadimarg massacre wassurprising as was the PM's decision to end his speech without the traditional Jai Hind. Dr Farooq Abdullah wasfamous (or infamous) for getting people to respond to Bharat Mata ki Jai at the end of his speeches.
The other big visitor was Vohra, who was supposed to initiate the internal dialogue. His was to besomething more than the past initiatives. He was supposed to be travelling to Srinagar with something in hisenvelope. What we got was a repeat of the past processes with one notable change — the absence of evenShabir Shah. Shabir Shah lent an air of credibility to the K.C. Pant process that Vohra was denied. What wasin that famous envelope will remain an eternal mystery.
The failure of past peace initiatives was blamed on the NC government, unfairly it would now seem. The NCis not in power in the state. We have, in fact, been pressing for a wider dialogue than just talking to thosewho already accept the finality of accession. So what stopped things this time? Why has a person, who inopposition said the Pant talks have no meaning without dialogue with the separatists, now gone silent afterbecoming CM?
No one from among the separatists will respond to an open general offer. So why can we not specificallyinvite then to the table? Do something unexpected. Think out of the box so to speak. Let’s imagine ascenario where Vohra arrives, uninvited, at the residence of an APHC leader, or better still at their office.What is the worst that will happen? They will turn him back from the gate. So what, big deal — at least hedid his best to get a dialogue started. The onus will now be on them to respond. Any failure to do so willjust discredit them further in the eyes of the people.
If they let Vohra enter what are they going to say that we have not heard already — that they wantPakistan to have Kashmir, that they want an independent country? We have heard all this a thousand timesalready but at least we will have the makings of a dialogue process. One that will lead to something more thanjust a process designed to keep a CM quiet and an international community supportive. The people of Kashmirand I dare say Jammu are becoming more cynical about these initiatives and cynicism in Kashmir is a dangerousthing.
The separatists cannot possibly be as committed to their cause as they would have us believe. They have noproblems travelling abroad on a passport that labels them as citizens of India. In fact the ultimate irony isthe separatist who calls himself the biggest Pakistani in Kashmir continues to draw a pension from the stategovernment, has his medical bills paid for by the state government and even signs an affidavit affirming hisstatus as a senior citizen of India to save a few thousand rupees on an air ticket. If these are notcontradictions enough to convince us that we can at least talk to them then I must be missing the writing onthe wall.
The more we keep them out of the dialogue process and let them convince the people in Kashmir that theGovernment of India is not sincere in its efforts, the more we make them relevant to the situation in thestate. Talk, attach no preconditions and let them attach none. Either they will contribute positively to areturn to normalcy or they will be exposed in the eyes of the people as fakes out to propagate a myth, a mythregarding their popularity, a myth regarding their agenda and a myth regarding their relevance. I would callthat a win-win situation.
Dr Abdullah delivered a bolt from the blue recently by proposing to the PM that a parliamentary delegationtravel to Pakistan. The purpose of this delegation will be to explore the possibilities of resuming a dialogue— to address the external dimension to the Kashmir problem. If we have no problems receiving theirParliamentary delegation how can we object to sending one? Such a delegation will allow the Government tostick to its stand of no talks till cross-border terrorism stops while still exploring possibilities ofresuming dialogue.
Advertisement
The telephone conversation between the two PMs is a welcome development and needs to be followed bysomething concrete. Vajpayee has extended the hand of friendship; let's see where we can get the two hands tomeet. If Dr Abdullah's participation is a sticking point (as it must for Pakistan) he would happily not go aslong as someone goes and says what needs to be said. I believe the thinking in Pakistan must be changing afterrecent events in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let's find out how much and see if we can work with new mindsets.
April had all the makings of a momentous month for J&K. May has all the makings of a bloody and violentmonth if the last few weeks are any indication. We were wrong about April. I hope to God we are wrong aboutMay as well.
Advertisement
(Omar Abdullah is president of the National Conference)
