Interlocutor for Kashmir The Excelsior 02 Nov 17
The home minister, Rajnath Singh, recently appointed Dineshwar Sharma as the centre’s interlocutor for Kashmir. He went on to state that Sharma is free to interact with any group or member of the region, which in his view, is a stake holder. Thus, the restrictions placed by the government of not talking to the Hurriyat, which it considered anti-national and pro-Pak appears to have been lifted. This itself indicates that there has been some re-think based on the changing environment.
While Sharma is the first interlocutor for the present government, there have been many prior. The UPA, during its ten-year rule had three interlocutors and five working groups, all of whom submitted their reports, none of which were even considered. It has been reported that Manmohan and Chidambaram had considered implementing some suggestions, but lacked the political strength to do so.
Hence, many doubt whether Sharma’s report will make any difference, expecting it to be one of the many, gathering dust. The opposition, previous interlocutors and the NC have been wary of the appointment of Sharma. Many have claimed that he is unqualified and the government’s approach is solely to buy time. It is essential that the individual and the approach be given an opportunity, prior to launching scathing attacks. This approach by the centre has reason and logic. For the centre, which has always been careful of its Kashmir policy, seeking to avoid indicating weakness, this decision is clearly from a position of strength.
There is a marked change in Kashmir in the past few months, after almost a whole season of turmoil. Burhan Wani’s encounter killing changed the valley’s atmosphere. The initial protests, which were spontaneous, were subsequently fuelled and funded by the separatists, who had no shortfall of funds, solely due to Pak’s largesse. The valley burnt, infiltration increased, compelling the government to induct additional forces into the region.
Since then, immense water has flown down the Jhelum. As the violence came under control, security forces began gaining the upper hand, eliminating terror group heads, almost as soon as they were being nominated. They have, this year alone, eliminated over 165 terrorists. Demonetization, raids and investigation by the NIA and the ED reduced the flow of funds from Pak, thus denying Hurriyat the freedom of sponsoring violence and hartals.
With peace returning to the valley, two major delegations were in the state near simultaneously, seeking to interact with the public. One was headed by the Home Minister and the other by Man Mohan Singh. Both delegations met a variety of groups and individuals, including politicians and traders. None of two groups had any interaction with the Hurriyat. Thus, while the Congress has not revealed officially what emerged, it does appear from the simultaneous visits that the government felt that the situation is now ripe for a move forward.
Till this change in environment, there was only one organization, which dominated the valley and considered itself as its spokesperson, solely because it had money power to fund violence and purchase support. This was the Hurriyat. Presently, with release of details of their amassing illegal property and wealth, while paying pittance for violence, leading a life of luxury while hundreds suffered in police retaliation, their standing has drastically reduced.
Further, with some members of the Hurriyat and close relatives of the top leadership behind bars and singing to the tune of the investigators, the leadership of the Hurriyat awaits its call for scrutiny. Most are old and suffer from a collection of ailments, hence know that if incarcerated, they may not survive long. Their hold on the masses, control over the valley and belief in their invincibility has vanished. Externally they cannot indicate a change in stance, internally they would be seeking a compromise.
The change is also evident in the attitude of the local population, who have begun to realize the futility of continuously battling the state. The high rate of success of security forces would never have been possible without information flowing from the grassroots. Violence during encounters has now become rare, compared to earlier. Pak infiltrated militants have used and abused local women, compelling many Kashmiris to turn towards the state. Morale of surviving militants is low as also is their financial status, forcing them to engage softer targets like ‘on leave’ police personnel, launch grenades from distances and strike banks for funds.
Increased cultural and sporting events in the valley, including the Adnan Sami show, without any incident or call for boycott, is also an indicator of re-emergence of a state of near normalcy. This change has enabled the state government to begin re-establishing control and commence developmental projects. It is in this changing environment that Sharma must wade into, to offer the centre the thoughts of the public.
While independence or implementation of the UN resolution is out of his purview, there are other options which can be considered, aimed at meeting local aspirations. Majority of the population are concerned about maintaining the religious and demographic identity of the region, ignoring the aspirations of the Kashmiri Pundits, who also remain major stake holders. Further, there would be desires for increasing employment avenues, better facilities and enhancing development.
A major shortcoming of this approach is that within the complete state, only the valley is being considered important enough to be addressed, ignoring Ladakh and Jammu. The views flowing would be localized, however implementation if any, would impact the state. If this approach is to reduce the influence of Pakistan supported militancy, then it maybe a narrow viewpoint.
Hence, can the government favour one part of the state, while ignoring others? Can it implement suggestions from one part, which could have an impact on the complete state? Is it conveying a message you need to be a minority strong region to be specifically addressed by the centre.
While the interlocutor may obtain views and suggestions from stakeholders in the valley, the centre needs to be cautious of the aspirations and hopes of the population of the rest of the state. If it ignores them, then this approach may cause more harm and enhance the intra state divide in the long term thus damaging the cohesiveness of the state.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army