It's Kashmir again

A few years ago when I persuaded Yasin Malik, the first militant in the valley of Kashmir, to give up his fast unto death, his demand was that the International Amnesty should visit the valley to verify the violation of human rights. He broke the fast when I gave an undertaking that I would myself head a team to Srinagar to prepare a report on the violations of human rights.

Today that kind of confidence has gone. The Hurriyat has refused to meet the delegation because the Hurriyat is not sure whether the delegation can deliver. There is yet another reason. The Hurriyat wants to rehabilitate itself in the eyes of Kashmiris, who have gone beyond the stage of talks. They want a separate, sovereign country. And they feel that the Hurriyat failed them in the past because it sought solution within the Indian union.

Home Minister Rajnath Singh of the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) headed the delegation. The Home Minister was justified in saying that the Hurriyat refusal went against the spirit of Kashmiriyat, which disseminated the message of love and harmony. The Hurriyat does not seem to recognise that. It gives little importance to the fact that the party came to power through free ballot box, the democratic way of measuring support in the country. The BJP has secured a majority of 543-members in the Lok Sabha on its own, with no alliance before or after the polls. On the other hand, the Hurriyat is only a combination of three factions. One is led by Yusaf Raza Gillani, who still wants accession to Pakistan, the other by Yasin Malik and the third by Shabir Shah.

My feeling is that at least two of them have become irrelevant in the present situation in the valley. They still prefer a settlement through a dialogue. The youth have, however, gone back to guns because they do not find either Yasin Malik or Shabir Shah delivering what they want, that is azadi (freedom). The gun is no solution either.

Over the years, the organisation has lost its importance in India. Even the Muslim population, some 25 million, cares little about what it says. Therefore, it was not surprising that the Indian media did not even report that the OIC had asked for referendum in Kashmir. The Muslim countries are themselves to blame for this, because they blatantly support Pakistan, just because it is a Muslim country.

Unlike Pakistan, where the last word is with the army chief, India is ruled by Parliament. The Hurriyat has insulted it. To insult it is to insult the Indian people. It was on the suggestion by the CPI (M) that the delegation went to Kashmir. Yachuri, the party's secretary, was insistent that the talks should begin with the Gillani group. Raising anti-India slogans when the delegation reached Gillani's residence may be helpful in placating the hardcore. But it does not address the core of the problem. Rajnath Singh has made it clear that Kashmir was an integral part of India and will remain so. This has put an end to the dialogue on Kashmir that Pakistan has been relentlessly demanding. Where do we go from here? There are options to hold talks. Even a limited war can become a nuclear war.

What New Delhi has to appreciate is that the Kashmiris' desire to distance themselves from India may not be considered in any meaningful transfer of power from New Delhi to Srinagar. Yet, the impression that the Kashmiris rule themselves has to be sustained. The National Conference waged a long war to get rid of Maharaja Hari Singh and had an icon like Sheikh Abdullah to provide a secular and democratic rule to the state. But the party suffered defeat in the assembly polls because it was seen as being too close to New Delhi.

The People's Democratic Party (PDP) won because its founder, Mufti Mohammad Sayyed, kept a distance from New Delhi without alienating it. The Kashmiris voted for him because he gave them a feeling of defiance. Omar Farooq Abdullah had to pay the price of National Conference's image of being pro-Delhi. Kashmir's links with India are too close to challenge beyond a point. Still the opposition, however small, gives Kashmiris a vicarious satisfaction of defying New Delhi.

Kashmir feels strongly about New Delhi's step-motherly treatment meted out to the language. And it is generally believed that it is languishing in neglect because Urdu is considered the language of Muslims. If New Delhi were to own and encourage Urdu, Kashmiris would have at least one less reason to feel aggrieved.

People in Kashmir are generally poor like the rest of India and they want jobs which they realise will come only through development in different industries, including tourism. The public themselves are not actively trying to drive militants out through use of arms. One, they are afraid of the militants and two, there is a general feeling that the militants are only trying give them an identity. Therefore, the criticism that there is no resistance to militants from within the valley should be understandable because it is a result of alienation.

I still believe that the 1953 Agreement, which gave India the control of defence, foreign affairs and communications, can improve part of the situation in the state. The Kashmiri youth who are angry over the state's status as well as the situation can be won over by the assurance that the entire Indian market is available to them for business or service.

But this alone may not do. New Delhi will have to withdraw all the acts relating to the fields other than defence, foreign affairs and communications. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act which was promulgated some 25 years ago to meet the extraordinary situation in the state is still in operation. Were the government to withdraw the Act, it would placate Kashmirs on one hand, and make the security forces more responsible on the other.

The writer is an eminent Indian columnist.