The print, electronic and web media have been flooded with various statements and opinions suggesting the crux of a common theme that the Government of India should hold talks with Pakistan and Kashmiris (of course excluding two major regions of Jammu and Ladakh) to find a permanent solution to the Kashmir issue that often embroils into violence at regular intervals.
Another suggestion mostly given is that India should talk to ‘all stakeholders' in Kashmir imbroglio. The recent visit to Kashmir of Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh has sent out the message that the Centre wants to talk to the people of the valley and to build an “emotional bond” with them. But most important question yet to be answered is— who truly represents the people of Kashmir? And of course; whom to talk to?
Home Minister met about two dozen deputations including retired government officials and leaders of the travel and tourism trade, but some section of civil society and trade representatives declined to meet.
The sum and substance of those who met him contained one message — hold dialogue with “all stakeholders”. The indicative meaning of this new phrase ‘all stakeholders' refers to talking with Hurriyat. Even the senior coalition partner People's Democratic Party and main opposition party National Conference want the Centre to talk to “all stakeholders”. In the present emerging scene where all Kashmir centric parties under ‘Radical Kashmir Doctrines' undisputedly pushing for the Centre to accept Kashmir as a political problem and not see it only through a development or security angles.
Today is the19th day of tension caused by violence, separatists' call for shut down, and clamping of curfew in Kashmir since July 8 when Hizbul Mujahideen ‘militant commander' Burhan Wani was shot dead along with his two associates by security forces. The government has to find a better way of breaking the impasse.
Many suggestions like lifting the AFSPA in some areas, total restraint on security apparatus, no search operations, removing the deployment of security forces etc have been floating to bring peace and make ground for further engaging in talks the suggested ‘all stakeholders'.
The arguments are advanced to initiate certain CBMs ahead of the more difficult task of amending or repealing AFSPA as it would signal that the government wants to bond with the people of the Valley.
On use of pallets, the home minister has said such methods are being studied, prompting arguments from some sections of the security forces that if it were not for pellets, the CRPF would be using real bullets against stone throwers. Such case-building would be obvious to emerge as a counter argument.
Having reached out to other national parties to forge a united stand against terrorism in Kashmir, it is also suggested now being the time for NDA government to seriously consider sending an all-party delegation to the Valley to signal the genuine intention of a political engagement. This is among the measures that former Union Home Minister P Chidambram has suggested in his columns published in some national and regional newspapers, along with reducing the presence of the armed forces in the Valley. The question that arises is why the UPA government in which Chidambaram held an important position never took any of these steps. This easy ability of the political class to do one thing while in office and say another out of it is one reason that no political initiative on Kashmir has got off the ground and why the Kashmiri people distrust such initiatives.
The seriousness of the present situation demands that political parties begin to forge a lasting consensus on how to move forward on Kashmir, which inevitably has to include talks with Pakistan on one hand and also with saner element who really want peace in Kashmir valley and in two major regions of J&K.
