The All-Party Delegation visit to break the impasse in Kashmir could be the last effort in this direction. It consisted of 30 parliament members from different political parties, including Home Minister Rajnath Singh, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley and Minister of State Jitendra Singh. At the end of the two-day visit, Singh, who led the delegation, did not sound optimistic about any breakthrough and repeated the government’s stand that Kashmir was, is and will remain an integral part of India. His assertion that doors were open for talks with all the stakeholders is not a new one and does not signal any movement towards dialogue.
The delegation came at a time when Kashmir seems to be moving towards a point of no return. The government has lost control of the situation with processions and violent incidents being the order of the day and no one is ready to listen to anyone. The imposition of a curfew for over two months now, albeit with a break after 51 days, is evidence that Kashmir has slipped out of all hands.
A curfew is the last option if you want a return to normalcy but when it continues for such a long, record period, it also seems to have outlived its utility. With 74 deaths and nearly 9,000 people injured, the Kashmir valley has been united in an unbearable pain that has just made them more resilient, puncturing theories of fatigue on which the government seemed to be banking upon till now.
As the joint Kashmiri resistance leadership, comprising Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik, refused to break bread with the visiting parliamentarians, who happen to be from non-ruling parties with some acceptability among Kashmiris, the possibility of a space for dialogue came to a near close. With Geelani, who was under house arrest, literally shutting his door on them, the scope for immediate engagement ended there and then. Mirwaiz and Malik had a brief tête-à-tête with Asaduddin Owaisi, Sitaram Yechury, D Raja and Sharad Yadav—but that was thrust on them since they were under government detention. All these leaders reminded the MPs of New Delhi’s betrayals. Whether the “splinter group” had the approval of the delegation headed by the home minister or not, they tried and failed to infuse any hope of life into a dead Kashmir.
There have been mixed reactions to the decision made by the joint leadership, which has been declaring unending strikes and protest calendars since July 9 after popular 22-year-old Hizb commander Burhan Wani was killed. Social media is abuzz with these reactions, but the more significant one came from Finance Minister Haseeb Drabu who said he was hurt as according to him, slamming the door on the MPs was against Kashmiri ethos. His views are being condemned on social media, where people question his moral high ground to say this (in view of the killings and injuries in Kashmir). A set of people do echo the view that Geelani could have opened the door and entertained them as guests, hand over his six-point formula, without entering into any discussion and ask them to come back with a response. But he stuck to his own position with the fallout being that a section of the media got the space to say that the separatists were against talks.
It is, however, important to understand the situation in which these three leaders are placed. The government miserably failed to conduct itself before announcing the dates for the delegation. All these leaders have been under house arrest or in detention for these two months and had the government really meant to use their influence to break the deadlock, they could have released them a few days before the delegation arrived. This could have given them a space for consultations. No conflict resolution process is conducted by jailing the opponent on your own terms and then making them talk. The process entails engagement that leads to formal negotiations. Even if one does not agree with what the Hurriyat and others espouse their point is valid—how could they engage without any prior consultations among themselves?
In today’s Kashmir all those who have a position in one set-up or other are not inclined to jump into a situation where there are no guarantees. Take, for example, the anarchy that broke out when a bloc president of the Peoples Democratic Party, who facilitated Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti’s meeting in south Kashmir’s Qazigund area, lost his house that was set on fire by protesters. There are many cases in which public ire has been demonstrated by attacking those whom the protesters see as collaborators. In that situation it has become difficult even for these three leaders to take decisions that do not make them irrelevant.
Moreover, the experience of opening the doors for a similar all-parties delegation in 2010 has left a bitter taste in the mouth. That visit helped bring the situation back to normalcy as the government of the time promised engagement to resolve the Kashmir conflict. But after interlocutors were appointed, they submitted a report, though within the ambit of the constitution, that added to the list of betrayals that has been the hallmark of New Delhi’s Kashmir policy since 1947.
A huge trust deficit has been the stumbling block for any fresh engagement in Kashmir. Entering into a dialogue with New Delhi without any guarantees is a remote possibility given the backdrop of repeated assertions that there could be no talks outside the Indian Constitution. In the past, the governments, both led by the BJP and Congress in Delhi, have held talks with a section of separatists but without any conditions. They failed to yield any result even without setting any conditions. What can be expected now when conditions are being laid before doing any groundwork has been done for such a political engagement? Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti invited separatist leaders for talks as PDP president but that too was without having done any homework. In any case, the talks on the resolution have to take place between New Delhi and those who challenge the accession—not at the level of state government.
Kashmir is at a crucial stage where normalcy is a thing of the past. Security forces are looking to reclaim the space lost to militants. The state government is helpless and the Government of India does not budge from its stand, ignoring the fact that a formalization of the dialogue process is inevitable. While the onus of breaking the deadlock lies mostly on New Delhi, the other side also needs to do brainstorming on how Kashmir could proceed. The government must release the leaders, allow them space and wait for how they respond to the situation. Both sides must look at this grim scenario with responsibility to save Kashmir from an impending catastrophe.
The author is a senior journalist based in Srinagar and can be mailed at shujaat7867@gmail.com
The delegation came at a time when Kashmir seems to be moving towards a point of no return. The government has lost control of the situation with processions and violent incidents being the order of the day and no one is ready to listen to anyone. The imposition of a curfew for over two months now, albeit with a break after 51 days, is evidence that Kashmir has slipped out of all hands.
A curfew is the last option if you want a return to normalcy but when it continues for such a long, record period, it also seems to have outlived its utility. With 74 deaths and nearly 9,000 people injured, the Kashmir valley has been united in an unbearable pain that has just made them more resilient, puncturing theories of fatigue on which the government seemed to be banking upon till now.
As the joint Kashmiri resistance leadership, comprising Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik, refused to break bread with the visiting parliamentarians, who happen to be from non-ruling parties with some acceptability among Kashmiris, the possibility of a space for dialogue came to a near close. With Geelani, who was under house arrest, literally shutting his door on them, the scope for immediate engagement ended there and then. Mirwaiz and Malik had a brief tête-à-tête with Asaduddin Owaisi, Sitaram Yechury, D Raja and Sharad Yadav—but that was thrust on them since they were under government detention. All these leaders reminded the MPs of New Delhi’s betrayals. Whether the “splinter group” had the approval of the delegation headed by the home minister or not, they tried and failed to infuse any hope of life into a dead Kashmir.
There have been mixed reactions to the decision made by the joint leadership, which has been declaring unending strikes and protest calendars since July 9 after popular 22-year-old Hizb commander Burhan Wani was killed. Social media is abuzz with these reactions, but the more significant one came from Finance Minister Haseeb Drabu who said he was hurt as according to him, slamming the door on the MPs was against Kashmiri ethos. His views are being condemned on social media, where people question his moral high ground to say this (in view of the killings and injuries in Kashmir). A set of people do echo the view that Geelani could have opened the door and entertained them as guests, hand over his six-point formula, without entering into any discussion and ask them to come back with a response. But he stuck to his own position with the fallout being that a section of the media got the space to say that the separatists were against talks.
It is, however, important to understand the situation in which these three leaders are placed. The government miserably failed to conduct itself before announcing the dates for the delegation. All these leaders have been under house arrest or in detention for these two months and had the government really meant to use their influence to break the deadlock, they could have released them a few days before the delegation arrived. This could have given them a space for consultations. No conflict resolution process is conducted by jailing the opponent on your own terms and then making them talk. The process entails engagement that leads to formal negotiations. Even if one does not agree with what the Hurriyat and others espouse their point is valid—how could they engage without any prior consultations among themselves?
In today’s Kashmir all those who have a position in one set-up or other are not inclined to jump into a situation where there are no guarantees. Take, for example, the anarchy that broke out when a bloc president of the Peoples Democratic Party, who facilitated Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti’s meeting in south Kashmir’s Qazigund area, lost his house that was set on fire by protesters. There are many cases in which public ire has been demonstrated by attacking those whom the protesters see as collaborators. In that situation it has become difficult even for these three leaders to take decisions that do not make them irrelevant.
Moreover, the experience of opening the doors for a similar all-parties delegation in 2010 has left a bitter taste in the mouth. That visit helped bring the situation back to normalcy as the government of the time promised engagement to resolve the Kashmir conflict. But after interlocutors were appointed, they submitted a report, though within the ambit of the constitution, that added to the list of betrayals that has been the hallmark of New Delhi’s Kashmir policy since 1947.
A huge trust deficit has been the stumbling block for any fresh engagement in Kashmir. Entering into a dialogue with New Delhi without any guarantees is a remote possibility given the backdrop of repeated assertions that there could be no talks outside the Indian Constitution. In the past, the governments, both led by the BJP and Congress in Delhi, have held talks with a section of separatists but without any conditions. They failed to yield any result even without setting any conditions. What can be expected now when conditions are being laid before doing any groundwork has been done for such a political engagement? Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti invited separatist leaders for talks as PDP president but that too was without having done any homework. In any case, the talks on the resolution have to take place between New Delhi and those who challenge the accession—not at the level of state government.
Kashmir is at a crucial stage where normalcy is a thing of the past. Security forces are looking to reclaim the space lost to militants. The state government is helpless and the Government of India does not budge from its stand, ignoring the fact that a formalization of the dialogue process is inevitable. While the onus of breaking the deadlock lies mostly on New Delhi, the other side also needs to do brainstorming on how Kashmir could proceed. The government must release the leaders, allow them space and wait for how they respond to the situation. Both sides must look at this grim scenario with responsibility to save Kashmir from an impending catastrophe.
The author is a senior journalist based in Srinagar and can be mailed at shujaat7867@gmail.com