Table for two, three?

It was fitting that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh8217;s round table meeting on Saturday with diverse sections of society in Jammu and Kashmir observed a two-minute silence. The silence, in memory of the four boys killed in the 8220;crossfire8221; in Kupwara8217;s Handawara town last week, ushered in the shrill echoes of grief and anger that have set the Valley astir. The meeting, intended to be the most representative dialogue initiative on J038;K so far, turned out to be a roll call of key absences. That the Hurriyat leaders exercised the option to stay away speaks of the government8217;s ill-preparedness as well as the separatists8217; suspect fidelity to transparency. But the moments of homage for the four Kupwara boys grounded the initiative in its proper context. There is rage being expressed on the streets of Kashmir today, and it is a rage that can only be healed through dialogue and engagement.

Meaningful engagement is impossible in meetings called without due diligence. It is unfortunate that what could have been a resonant gathering was finally not just spectacularly short on quorum, but that it became an opportunity for Hurriyat leaders to present no-shows as snubs. Yes, the government erred in hurrying its announcement of the round table. But the most ringing statement of insincerity came from Mirwaiz Omer Farooq. He leads a band of men self-professedly committed to dialogue and resolution. But at every turn, when they are invited to the larger table 8212; whether it be in New Delhi on Saturday or earlier in elections to the state assembly 8212; they opt out. In its refusals, the Hurriyat is confirming its self-doubt over putting its popularity to the test in elections, and over exposing its fiery rhetoric to interrogation in civil interactions.

The government is, therefore, faced with a quandary: a participant can refuse to attend to score a point, and portray meetings as unrepresentative. The solution would be to stay the course, and so strengthen dialogue with follow-up on the ground that boycott would be a statement only about the absentee8217;s sincerity.