New Delhi has recently hinted at restarting the dialogue with Kashmiri leadership but seems to be clueless as to who to talk to. Khursheed Wani reports
On August 25, Home Minister P Chidambaram while addressing the top-notch Indian policemen conceded that the Government of India has lost the thread to restart dialogue process in Jammu and Kashmir. In the same breath he exhorted confidence that the elusive starting point would be found in next few days to begin the much-needed process anew.
“It is my hope that in the next few days we would be able to find the elusive starting point from where we could reach out to the protestors, reassure them of their rights and dignity, restore peace and order, redeem the promises made, and to start the dialogue process” he said and elaborated Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh’s offer of dialogue with “all sections of people of the state and political parties and groups” to find political solution to the problem of Jammu and Kashmir.
Home Minister is involved in Kashmir affairs more than the Chief Minister of the state, to the extent that at times the timing of imposition and relaxation of curfew was decided by the ministry. As a matter of policy, the dialogue process in Kashmir has been made sole prerogative of the home ministry to manage it as the internal affair of the country. Therefore, on August 3, 2000 when Hizbul Mujahideen’s top five commanders decided to enter into dialogue with Government of India, the then home secretary Kamal Pandey and his team of officers were sent in to talk. The process failed so quickly.
The threads were picked up later by AB Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance regime. In 2003, the then home minister Lal Krishan Advani, who was more influential as the deputy prime minister, initiated a dialogue process with a section of separatists. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and his colleagues entered into that dialogue process even though no progress was made. The only exception was a period between 2004 and 2006 when broad-based dialogue with separatists was carried out at the level of the Prime Minister’s office. Ironically, before the process showed signs of consolidation, New Delhi unilaterally pulled out of the process. In January 2007, when Mirwaiz returned from Pakistan to hold similar meetings in New Delhi as in Islamabad, he was denied audience by the PMO. He returned empty-handed and was later constrained to pull out of the dialogue he had plunged into with calculated risks.
The situation in Pakistan, particularly the precarious position of General Musharraf, held back India to do further business with Islamabad. In the collateral damage, the dialogue process started within Kashmir got torpedoed.
Post 2008, the situation has altogether changed in Kashmir. The 61 percent voter turnout, which was referred to as “answer to separatism”, by the Prime Minister in 2009 Independence Day speech, was mistaken as Indianization of Kashmir. The subsequent developments, particularly the current uprising, which started on June 11 after police killed a teenager with teargas shell’s stroke, put a question mark on the genuineness of the elections. So far, the elected government is accused of killing 64 civilians, predominantly teenagers, who have been unanimously demanding resolution of Kashmir issue. Their methods of protest—sloganeering, bringing out processions and pelting stones on police and paramilitaries—have been replied with shooting. Hundreds have been injured in the process, many of them with permanent disabilities.
“I am afraid Jammu and Kashmir is now caught in a vicious cycle of stone-pelting, lathicharge, teargasing and firing, leading to casualties and resulting in more stone-pelting”, home minister conceded in the conference.
The confidence to find the elusive starting-point for dialogue initiation “in a few days” seems misplaced as there are no visible signs of engagement with any of the major stakeholders in the conflict. The entire gamut of separatists, from recently-released Yasin Malik to Mirwaiz Umar and Syed Ali Geelani, none of the separatist leader has agreed to enter into dialogue process. In fact, when Prime Minister made declarations in a so-called all-party meet in New Delhi about dialogue and understanding, the separatists dismissed it as “routine”.
The recent uprising in Kashmir is thus far managed by Syed Ali Geelani and his group who have declared “Quit Jammu and Kashmir campaign” on June 25. In the middle of the crisis, New Delhi, in a bid to clutch proverbial straws, set Geelani free and Chidambaram even offered dialogue with him in his speech in the parliament. This was the response to Geelani’s positive remark asking the stone-throwers to desist from violence and arson. Geelani’s message was repeated umpteen times through the official media. This had an impact, initially.
But Geelani does not seem to be the choice of New Delhi to initiate dialogue with. There has been no formal offer of dialogue with the separatists. An influential hardline section of opinion in New Delhi is against engaging Geelani in the dialogue process citing the reason that this would encourage the hardline separatists.
They even fear that Geelani would reject the offer as has indicated in press conferences and interviews. But, the predicament with New Delhi is that with Geelani out of the loop, the other separatists, who are not alien to the dialogue process, would not be ready to engage. Geelani and his colleagues have demonstrated their sway on the people with success of their “protest calendars”, which are followed by people in letter and spirit for last two months. Even, the imposition of restrictions, functioning of government offices and official transactions are influenced by Geelani’s schedule announcements. Mirwaiz had to appeal to Geelani to spare Fridays from shutdowns, which he subsequently paid heed to.
In such a scenario, how Geelani can be sidelined? An insider told Kashmir Life that Government of India is contemplating to wait for a while, until Geelani’s “Quit Kashmir Movement” sheds luster and impact. “If the Geelani’s call for protest fails for a single day, the government would take it as no-confidence (of people) in him. Then only dialogue offer would be made. If Geelani accepts well and good, if not, no issues”, he said. Geelani seems determined on his mission. In his recent declaration, he asked the people to be prepared for a long-drawn struggle until the goal of right to self-determination was achieved. The two positions are diametrically opposite.
Observers say that Geelani’s movement has been restricted and the political space he was offered by the state government has been squeezed. However, it is difficult for the government to re-arrest him after much hoopla over his release in almost unprecedented style.
But, it is not Geelani alone, whom New Delhi is wary of engaging into dialogue. The prevailing situation in Kashmir and the politics that led to it has developed a huge gulf between New Delhi and some of its trusted loyalists in Kashmir. The main opposition People’s Democratic Party is at loggerheads with the state and the central government over the ongoing extraordinary situation in the state. The PDP has shown cold shoulder to Center’s pleas to suggest remedial measures to tide over the crisis. The party refused to participate in the all-party meeting in Srinagar and even ignored Prime Minister’s personal intervention in this regard. It also avoided the all-party meet in New Delhi where Omar Abdullah did not speak a word and the Prime Minister hinted at considering autonomy for J&K if a consensus was achieved at national level.
The reason for PDP’s boycott to the all-party meetings is primarily its non-cooperation with the ruling coalition. The PDP nurses a grudge against the Congress High Command that it preferred the National Conference over it to form the government in Jammu and Kashmir in January 2009 despite the fact that PDP-Congress coalition had been proven as a right choice. The Congress, on its part, snubbed the PDP on its decision to pull out of the coalition in June 2008, when the state was in worst turmoil on Amarnath land controversy. The PDP’s withdrawal of support led to premature fall of Gulam Nabi Azad led coalition government.
Former Chief Minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed is the most shrewd mainstream politician in Jammu and Kashmir. The politics has taken such a turn that the Center is neither engaging him, nor is he ready to cooperate, to find out a solution to the ongoing crisis. Observers say that continuation of Omar Abdullah is Center’s compulsion in Jammu and Kashmir for varied reasons, but the same fact is indigestible for the opposition party.
The PDP has 21 members in the legislative assembly. Some analysts opine that if the PDP legislators offer resignations en masse, it could create a constitutional crisis paving way for the fall of coalition government. But PDP is not ready to take the risk. “This won’t help in the present situation. Today, if we resign, the state government would have a free run. Kashmir is not like any other part of the country where following the resignation of the opposition; the government would take moral responsibility and step down. Here, the NC would love us to go because they are scary of a potent mainstream opposition,” PDP President Mehbooba Mufti told Kashmir Life.
“Last time, when we pulled out of the power in 2008, it was in 24 hours that the government revoked the order favouring transfer of land to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board. This time, we feel, our resignation can only deprive people of a credible voice. This is for today, I can’t say anything for tomorrow”, she said while keeping her cards open.
The stone-throwers in streets of Srinagar and elsewhere are crying hoarse for the resolution of Kashmir issue with serious, purposeful and result-oriented dialogue. The dialogue cannot take place in vacuum unless the main stake-holders of the process are involved and with purpose, is a common impression.
