Opinion As friends of Kashmir do

The entire history of engagement between Kashmir and the rest of the country has been mired in events that have bred deep suspicion and cynicism. It’s therefore the easiest conclusion for an ordinary Kashmiri to convince himself that “nothing is going to come out of this effort”.

But a stark difference marks the two scenarios,which inspires one to invest some hope in this initiative. 1990 marked a foray into unfamiliar territory for Kashmiri youth,backed by a strong popular sentiment. For the first time,violent means came into operation as an expression of anger and frustration. The Rajiv Gandhi visit was doomed in the roar of guns that were to rule Kashmir and undo its political narrative.

Now things are different. Kashmir seems to have disowned the gun,is wary of it even as an external factor to an essentially political struggle. The arrival of the country’s political elite in such a scenario in itself could become a watershed.

What has added to the misery and complexities of Kashmir has been the complete reversal of the political process that had,63 years ago,defied the logic of partition and ended up in the accession of the country that was Kashmir (always described as such by Nehru) with India. No sooner did that happen,the state of India unfortunately decided to downgrade the relationship to an intelligence-security enterprise. All decisions were guided by strategic interests and implemented by the security establishment. Politicians had to follow what was laid down in intelligence blueprints. A country,with people priding themselves on a 5000-year-long culture and recorded history,was unfortunately to become the victim of perennial mistrust,which with time became mutual.

I was part of a delegation that made a 15-minute presentation to the country’s political elite. We didn’t say much in those 15 minutes. But there seemed to be an unexpressed bonding with our audience. In fact,nothing needed to be said on that day when a group of 40 hardboiled politicians landed in a place which never looked like a part of the world’s largest democracy. An entire population of seven million had been imprisoned through the world’s largest security set-up on that day. The “operation silence”,by its very nature,betrayed a painful story. But the silver lining lay in that it was the day of khadi,not khaki,which was not visible in the meeting hall for a change.

The sentiment of self-determination was born with the fact of accession itself. It assumed many names along the way. It was Sheikh Abdullah’s plebiscite and someone else’s unfinished business of partition (to make this Muslim majority state part of Pakistan). Of late it is azadi. It represents a whole host of ideas ranging from a popular response to injustice,disempowerment,deprivation and political intrigue that has witnessed New Delhi supporting the least popular dispensations in the state. A section of this sentiment also questions Indian sovereignty drawing its argument from historical sources and the six-decade-long course of events. The denial of its existence has only made it more widespread and entrenched. What was required is acknowledging it and meeting it with more creative alternatives,which is yet to happen. However,the ferocity of this sentiment always remained inversely proportional to the quality of governance.

There have been good patches and bad patches in Kashmir’s recent history. One good phase was post-1975,though the theme of Sheikh Abdullah’s governance essentially remained emotional. The election of 2002 marks an important political watershed. Not because of credibility alone but the agenda of governance that,for the first time,established a genuine two-party system. The years following it marked important political progress,culminating in record participation in the 2008 elections even in the wake of the Amarnath upsurge. Mainstream politics became relevant to the resolution rather than hated and ostracised as part of the problem. The question that political pundits must answer is why the best-ever situation,when governance had become an issue and elections regained credibility,led to the present nightmare. Have governance and political conduct post-2002 set new standards that resulted in disillusionment post-2008?

While the all-party delegation came in an atmosphere of total mistrust,the way they tried to know the actual sentiment and reasons for the current crisis has suddenly raised hopes among many. The leaders could help achieve a breakthrough if they realise the sheer responsibility they have been able to go back with. They could replace the perennial image of the guilty men of India in Kashmir by another one — friends of Kashmir.

The writer is a PDP spokesman

express@expressindia.com