The appointment of the former director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), Dineshwar Sharma, in October came at a time when hard power was a foregone conclusion as far as the approach of Government of India was towards Jammu and Kashmir. Sharma’s appointment came as a pleasant surprise, though it did not hold much promise to break the deadlock politically. Nevertheless, many people in the state, particularly Kashmir, that is the center of political dissent, positively responded to this “gesture”.
So far, he has made three visits to the state and talked to many people, including those who don’t challenge the state’s accession to the Indian union. They are the leaders from mainstream parties such as the National Conference, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Congress and, of course, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Besides his engagement with the “usual suspects”, Sharma travelled to South Kashmir, the hotbed of anti-India uprising and met the youth. His latest visit began on December 23 and focused on North Kashmir and Jammu. He often repeated that he was open to talking to anyone and wanted to bring peace back.
When Sharma’s name was announced as yet another interlocutor for Jammu and Kashmir, he immediately took the high road and sounded out of touch with reality, even though he had headed the IB that not only knows the ins and outs, but is largely believed to be responsible for the Kashmir mess. He talked about keeping Kashmir away from becoming Syria and weaning its youth from radicalization. This sounded amusing as there seemed to be no comparison between Syria and Kashmir given the government’s own claims about normalcy.
Radicalization of youth based on religion is also a much-hyped up expression which immediately makes one start thinking about Kashmir as a franchise of ISIS. However, two months after his appointment and reaching out to people has perhaps made Sharma understand that he must not point out only the issues that have international links. After he met people in Pulwama he told reporters: “I met a lot of people and I am satisfied with my visit. I am sure I can call the visit a positive one.”
However, meeting delegations whose problems are supposed to be solved by the state government may not be a satisfying situation for him. What has emerged as significant from his visit so far is the amnesty to 4,500 youth whose cases Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti said would be withdrawn (seen as a recommendation by Sharma). In 2016 the police booked nearly 11,500 youth under different categories following the six-month long unrest that claimed nearly 100 lives. The decision to withdraw the cases is seen as a positive sign by the affected families though not by the politicians from both separatist and mainstream camps. At the same time, people are skeptical about the implementation of the decision since the state’s credibility as an institution is at the lowest ebb.
In 2010, the then Omar Abdullah government had booked youth and in the same manner announced amnesty, but the decision was not implemented fully on the ground. Such a step may give Sharma a reason to further create the space to reach out, but it has been squeezed to such an extent that an individual who has the baggage of the past may not be in a position to maneuver it.
Sharma is himself conscious about his past association and that is why he told the Press Trust of India on November 5 that he would want to be judged by his actions. “Nothing has changed since I was there for the first time. Kashmiriyat, which means compassion and brotherhood, has not changed even an iota. Therefore, I am hopeful that I will be at least able to contribute towards a new Kashmir, a peaceful Valley where prosperity will be the order of the day,” he said, adding. “I do not have a magic wand, but my efforts must be judged with sincerity and not through the prism of the past.”
The mandate
Sharma’s mandate is still missing notwithstanding the assertions made by Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh that he was free to meet anyone. There were no pre-conditions either. The terms of reference mentioned in the order issued by the president, giving him the cabinet secretary rank, have yet to come. Not only is the clarity on his mandate lacking but a section of BJP leaders, including a vocal minister in the Narendra Modi government, limited the scope of his work by maintaining that there was no issue called Kashmir. That is why the impression went around that it was yet another half-hearted initiative by the Government of India and linked to US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to India. Since the United States has been concerned about the deteriorating relations between India and Pakistan and sees Kashmir as a factor, that nudge must have come from there. Otherwise there was no hurry to appoint Sharma just 24 hours before his visit. “It certainly was to ward off the pressure from the US and send them a message that Delhi was talking to Kashmiris,” said a political analyst. Since Modi has been facing more pressure on the domestic front with a population unhappy with the demonetisation failure, GST and much more, he could not afford Kashmir to be another front. Otherwise engagement with the Hurriyat and Pakistan is part of the Agenda of Alliance the BJP reached with the PDP in order to come to power.
It is interesting to note that the exercise is aimed at understanding Kashmir and its problems. Even after 70 years and that too after the people have starkly demonstrated what they want, Delhi is juggling to see what the problem is. Understanding Kashmir as a conflict and approaching it politically with an aim to find a solution is what Delhi has been lacking. In the past three years of BJP rule every effort has been made to make Kashmir look like a security problem that can only be handled by military power. At one point in time, Kashmir certainly looked like it was caught in a war as the number of local militants continued to increase and encounters became routine. Even now the armed conflict has not shown any let-up though the government maintains that there 282 militants active in Kashmir. What is more alarming is the social sanction the armed struggle has received in the past few years evident from the thousands who attend the funerals of militants.
Even though militancy is a reality, its political causes cannot be ignored. Continuous denial of this reality has made it all the more interesting for the educated young Kashmiri. But Sharma’s appointment, irrespective of whatever the result, is an admission of the fact on the part of Delhi that hard power alone cannot work. Even if this realization is thrust upon them, there is no other way out. However, a serious effort to reach out to the separatists has made this initiative somehow irrelevant. Asking them to come if they want to talk is perhaps not the way conflict resolutions take place the world over. Engagement with the Hurriyat, which represents political dissent, is needed to lend credibility to such a process. But before that, the government unleashed a war on it by arresting most of its middle rung leadership under the National Investigating Agency’s “war on terror funding”. It seemed as if the GoI wanted to bring them to submission and hold dialogue under duress. When the NDA government, then also headed by the BJP in 2004 had initiated a dialogue with the Hurriyat it was under a framework and not an open invitation. That could not survive the vagaries of conflict of interest either but still the process appeared dignified. Here the interlocutor has not made any specific roadmap to talk to those who need to be talked to.
Hurriyat dilemma
New Delhi may be lacking sincerity and seriousness in political engagement but the Hurriyat Conference (that is now led by the Joint Resistance Leadership of Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik) is also lacking the acumen to deal with the situation.
The trio outright rejected dialogue even though it kept saying day in and day out that it was necessary. Without any proper invitation to come the table, they rejected Sharma’s appointment. Dialogue is something that Kashmiris have been asking for and the trio’s main task was to represent the people. It is not to dish out rhetoric that has been going on for a long time. Here, the influence of Pakistan is not ruled out. Many believe that Islamabad holds key to any decision the Hurriyat leaders take. Though not verified, on the face of it, there is hardly any doubt about Pakistan playing a role in Kashmir. It is a fact that Delhi has maturely approached Jammu and Kashmir’s political problem but the challenge for the Hurriyat is to also decide how they fit themselves in.
Why does Sharma not get a warm response even from those who strongly believe in the process of dialogue? There is a history to this. Right from 1947, New Delhi has appointed pointmen and made promises but only to break them in the end. This long path of broken promises and betrayals have disillusioned the people.
The writer is a senior journalist based in Srinagar (Kashmir) and can be reached at shujaat7867@gmail.com
So far, he has made three visits to the state and talked to many people, including those who don’t challenge the state’s accession to the Indian union. They are the leaders from mainstream parties such as the National Conference, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Congress and, of course, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Besides his engagement with the “usual suspects”, Sharma travelled to South Kashmir, the hotbed of anti-India uprising and met the youth. His latest visit began on December 23 and focused on North Kashmir and Jammu. He often repeated that he was open to talking to anyone and wanted to bring peace back.
What has emerged as significant from his visit so far is the amnesty to 4,500 youth whose cases Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti said would be withdrawn. In 2016 the police booked nearly 11,500 youth after the six-month long unrest that claimed nearly 100 lives
When Sharma’s name was announced as yet another interlocutor for Jammu and Kashmir, he immediately took the high road and sounded out of touch with reality, even though he had headed the IB that not only knows the ins and outs, but is largely believed to be responsible for the Kashmir mess. He talked about keeping Kashmir away from becoming Syria and weaning its youth from radicalization. This sounded amusing as there seemed to be no comparison between Syria and Kashmir given the government’s own claims about normalcy.
Radicalization of youth based on religion is also a much-hyped up expression which immediately makes one start thinking about Kashmir as a franchise of ISIS. However, two months after his appointment and reaching out to people has perhaps made Sharma understand that he must not point out only the issues that have international links. After he met people in Pulwama he told reporters: “I met a lot of people and I am satisfied with my visit. I am sure I can call the visit a positive one.”
However, meeting delegations whose problems are supposed to be solved by the state government may not be a satisfying situation for him. What has emerged as significant from his visit so far is the amnesty to 4,500 youth whose cases Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti said would be withdrawn (seen as a recommendation by Sharma). In 2016 the police booked nearly 11,500 youth under different categories following the six-month long unrest that claimed nearly 100 lives. The decision to withdraw the cases is seen as a positive sign by the affected families though not by the politicians from both separatist and mainstream camps. At the same time, people are skeptical about the implementation of the decision since the state’s credibility as an institution is at the lowest ebb.
In 2010, the then Omar Abdullah government had booked youth and in the same manner announced amnesty, but the decision was not implemented fully on the ground. Such a step may give Sharma a reason to further create the space to reach out, but it has been squeezed to such an extent that an individual who has the baggage of the past may not be in a position to maneuver it.
Sharma is himself conscious about his past association and that is why he told the Press Trust of India on November 5 that he would want to be judged by his actions. “Nothing has changed since I was there for the first time. Kashmiriyat, which means compassion and brotherhood, has not changed even an iota. Therefore, I am hopeful that I will be at least able to contribute towards a new Kashmir, a peaceful Valley where prosperity will be the order of the day,” he said, adding. “I do not have a magic wand, but my efforts must be judged with sincerity and not through the prism of the past.”
The mandate
Sharma’s mandate is still missing notwithstanding the assertions made by Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh that he was free to meet anyone. There were no pre-conditions either. The terms of reference mentioned in the order issued by the president, giving him the cabinet secretary rank, have yet to come. Not only is the clarity on his mandate lacking but a section of BJP leaders, including a vocal minister in the Narendra Modi government, limited the scope of his work by maintaining that there was no issue called Kashmir. That is why the impression went around that it was yet another half-hearted initiative by the Government of India and linked to US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to India. Since the United States has been concerned about the deteriorating relations between India and Pakistan and sees Kashmir as a factor, that nudge must have come from there. Otherwise there was no hurry to appoint Sharma just 24 hours before his visit. “It certainly was to ward off the pressure from the US and send them a message that Delhi was talking to Kashmiris,” said a political analyst. Since Modi has been facing more pressure on the domestic front with a population unhappy with the demonetisation failure, GST and much more, he could not afford Kashmir to be another front. Otherwise engagement with the Hurriyat and Pakistan is part of the Agenda of Alliance the BJP reached with the PDP in order to come to power.
It is interesting to note that the exercise is aimed at understanding Kashmir and its problems. Even after 70 years and that too after the people have starkly demonstrated what they want, Delhi is juggling to see what the problem is. Understanding Kashmir as a conflict and approaching it politically with an aim to find a solution is what Delhi has been lacking. In the past three years of BJP rule every effort has been made to make Kashmir look like a security problem that can only be handled by military power. At one point in time, Kashmir certainly looked like it was caught in a war as the number of local militants continued to increase and encounters became routine. Even now the armed conflict has not shown any let-up though the government maintains that there 282 militants active in Kashmir. What is more alarming is the social sanction the armed struggle has received in the past few years evident from the thousands who attend the funerals of militants.
Even though militancy is a reality, its political causes cannot be ignored. Continuous denial of this reality has made it all the more interesting for the educated young Kashmiri. But Sharma’s appointment, irrespective of whatever the result, is an admission of the fact on the part of Delhi that hard power alone cannot work. Even if this realization is thrust upon them, there is no other way out. However, a serious effort to reach out to the separatists has made this initiative somehow irrelevant. Asking them to come if they want to talk is perhaps not the way conflict resolutions take place the world over. Engagement with the Hurriyat, which represents political dissent, is needed to lend credibility to such a process. But before that, the government unleashed a war on it by arresting most of its middle rung leadership under the National Investigating Agency’s “war on terror funding”. It seemed as if the GoI wanted to bring them to submission and hold dialogue under duress. When the NDA government, then also headed by the BJP in 2004 had initiated a dialogue with the Hurriyat it was under a framework and not an open invitation. That could not survive the vagaries of conflict of interest either but still the process appeared dignified. Here the interlocutor has not made any specific roadmap to talk to those who need to be talked to.
Hurriyat dilemma
New Delhi may be lacking sincerity and seriousness in political engagement but the Hurriyat Conference (that is now led by the Joint Resistance Leadership of Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik) is also lacking the acumen to deal with the situation.
The trio outright rejected dialogue even though it kept saying day in and day out that it was necessary. Without any proper invitation to come the table, they rejected Sharma’s appointment. Dialogue is something that Kashmiris have been asking for and the trio’s main task was to represent the people. It is not to dish out rhetoric that has been going on for a long time. Here, the influence of Pakistan is not ruled out. Many believe that Islamabad holds key to any decision the Hurriyat leaders take. Though not verified, on the face of it, there is hardly any doubt about Pakistan playing a role in Kashmir. It is a fact that Delhi has maturely approached Jammu and Kashmir’s political problem but the challenge for the Hurriyat is to also decide how they fit themselves in.
Why does Sharma not get a warm response even from those who strongly believe in the process of dialogue? There is a history to this. Right from 1947, New Delhi has appointed pointmen and made promises but only to break them in the end. This long path of broken promises and betrayals have disillusioned the people.
The writer is a senior journalist based in Srinagar (Kashmir) and can be reached at shujaat7867@gmail.com