J&K: The Way Forward

by JAYAN P.A.

The much-awaited report on Jammu and Kashmir (hereinafter J and K) was submitted by the three interlocutors—journalist Dileep Padgaonkar, academic Radha Kumar, former Information Commissioner M.M. Ansari—to the Union Home Ministry on October 12, 2011. The three-member panel was appointed by the Centre exactly a year ago with a mandate to suggest the contours of a political settlement of the J and K problem. The report is the outcome of the interactions of the three interlocutors with more than 600 delegations, mass meetings in all 22 districts of J and K, and three roundtable conferences with women activists, scholars and cultural activists. The noteworthy aspect of this report is that it is related to the welfare of the people in J and K. It is with this key objective in view that the report has been prepared and finalised.

I pose certain questions. Would the political settlement suggested result in the solution of the problem in Jammu and Kashmir (J and K)? Is it an exercise in futility? Does it clearly outline or stipulate the ways and means to bring about ‘meaningful autonomy’ in J and K? Did this report reflect upon the ground realities of the Valley? Would it remain a hollow promise from the side of the Union Government? Will the process the interlocutors initiated be carried forward by the Home Ministry in the near future? Would this report meet the same fate as other such reports?

Much has been said and written on the Kashmir solution and the peace process. There is no follow-up action and no political will on the part of the government. The Home Ministry sources said and promised that the process initiated by the interlocutors would be carried forward. There is no doubt that the report focuses on a permanent political settlement of the Kashmir problem. The interlocutors had regular consultations with the civil society, scholars, the heads of the police, paramilitary forces, the Army and they had got their side of story which has been incorporated and reflected in the report. The report offers important insights as it upholds, in an “accurate and comprehensive” manner, the views of the broadest possible spectrum of people of the State.

Another question is: would it serve as a milestone in J and K? I would answer in the affirmative. However, Kashmir analysts in the government do not find much merit in interlocutor Dileep Padgaonkar’s assertion that the “separatists have missed the bus” by not engaging in talks with the interlocutors.

“For us, they (the separatists) are a reality and cannot be wished away even if Padgaonkar says so or the report talks about giving much greater autonomy to the State,” a senior official dealing with Kashmir said. “All stakeholders in the country should come together to ensure that peace, stability prevail in J and K,” Dileep Padgaonkar told after submitting the report. He also stressed the prime focus of the report was the “welfare of the people of Jammu and Kashmir”. It would have been good if the Hurriyat separa-tists had come forward to exchange opinions with the interlocutors. Barring former Hurriyat Chairman Maulana Abas Ansari, no other pro-minent separatist leader interacted with the central interlocutors.

The report proposes councils for the three J and K regions. Regional councils for all three regions of J and K to address local aspirations and reduce alienation from the national main-stream and measures to improve governance with the focus on women and children are a part of the interlocutors’ report.

•

IT is learned that the report has suggested the elements of a political solution to the situation which led to the unrest in Kashmir last year claiming 120 lives. The report has sought to reflect the views of a broad section of the public in J and K including those of the separatists. Padgaonkar had mentioned that the report could have been meaningful if the separatists had met him and his colleagues, Radha Kumar and M.M. Ansari. One does not believe that the report has recommended a return to the pre-1952 status in the Kashmir Valley as suggested in some media reports. This was not on the table at all. The interlocutors have looked at a host of issues that have led to difficulties for the common citizens of the State and resulted in a strong sense of alienation. It also does not make any reference to “self-rule” as demanded by the PDP (People’s Democratic Party), the main Opposition party in the State.

Despite the separatists’ refusal to meet the panel of interlocutors, the report was not affected by their boycott as it included all stated public positions of political parties and other groups. The report has also reflected upon the with-drawal of the controversial Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) which ordinary Kashmiris say provides impunity to soldiers involved in human rights abuses; the people had expressed their opinion on that law and the Disturbed Areas Act, and the report discusses those elaborately. The Central Government would have to share the report with an all-party delegation. It would have to be brought into the public domain because we want it to be debated across the country and in particular in J and K itself.

It is also clear that the report has steered clear of the contentious issues of ‘azadi’, ‘self-rule’ and ‘autonomy’. It has also dealt with human rights violations and has a section on social issues and cultural diversity in all the three regions—Jammu, the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. The report touches upon human rights violations and clearly spells out the cultural diversity of Jammu and Ladakh regions of the State. It is understood that the report seeks to build and strengthen cross-border and cross-LoC ties, including the movement of people across the border and establishment of trade relations.

In line with the Centre’s earlier announce-ments, the central panel has recommended a huge economic package for the State. This is aimed at generating employment and major infrastructure development to provide connecti-vity and boost tourism in the State. The report has also touched upon problems facing the youth and the need for the promotion of economic opportunities in the State, including ties across the Line of Control (LoC) with the Pakistan-administered Kashmir. In order to promote a political settlement, the panel made recommendations on other issues directly affecting the people of J and K regarding its economy, social infrastructure, and issues per-taining to culture. That’s striking because while addressing the political issues, the cultural ethos of the Valley needs to be acknowledged as the key element in the dialogue process across wide cross-sections of the people. While locating the cultural dimension it remains to seen whether the regional councils proposed by the interlo-cutors are on communal or on more acceptable ethnic lines. Without the cultural element, and dialogue with the separatists, the whole question of political settlement will be bereft of any meaning and substance.

One last observation. Too little attention has been given to the larger geopolitical context to bolster confidence in diplomacy that has a crucial part of play in conflict resolution. Eliminating the sources of conflict is simply not possible. The conciliatory spirit of Simla (1972) turned out to be short-lived. The external dimension of the peace process and political settlement cannot be overlooked. The external elements are also the key to address the political settlement in J and K as also the dialogue process with different groups. Will the particular dimension of India-Pakistan relationship—that has, in general, been markedly ‘conflictual’— impinge on the dialogue? The answer is yes. Since this is a decisive factor, accommodating the varied interests of different sections of the people in the Valley becomes imperative.

The author is a Ph.D. holder from the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Now he teaches Political Science and International Relations at St. Joseph’s College (Autonomous), Bangalore. He can be contacted by e-mail: jayanpa@gmail.com