Tragedy unfolds again in Kashmir

Tense Valley: All stakeholders should not fritter away the chance for a rare political consensus

It is now two weeks since the current phase of unrest began in the Kashmir Valley. A total of 45 people are dead, 2,500 wounded and several have been blinded. The violence is now dying down, but the Hurriyat has extended its protest calendar. Much will depend on what happens in the coming week. But what led to the present unrest? The immediate trigger was the killing of a young militant, Burhan Wani.

However, Kashmir has been in a state of volatility since 2008, with conflict breaking out in 2008, 2009 and 2010. In 2010, at least 120 youth died in stone-pelting incidents with security forces. Though the agitation died down, the opportunity that had then opened for peace building in the Valley was frittered away and small conflicts began to rise once again, combined with the revival of limited militant attacks with cross-border support from Pakistani jihadi organisations, such as the United Jehad Council and Lashkar-e-Toiba.

The BJP-PDP coalition woes did not help. The two parties had fought a bitter campaign in the 2014 elections, with one accusing the other of being “soft separatists” and the other accusing the first of being Hindu communalists. Having thus polarised their electorates, the two had to rise above differences to govern together and reassure their respective constituencies. But they were not able to do so.

The long-awaited flood relief and infrastructure development funds were not disbursed on time, and the discord between coalition partners was another contributory factor to the mounting resentment in the Valley. Events in the rest of India, like the beef controversy where Muslims and Dalits were attacked, and the crackdown on student protests in West Bengal, Telangana and New Delhi–many of which focused on Kashmir–were seen as further provocations that added fuel to fire. And then there was Pakistan. The Pakistani government began to revert to its old inimical posture towards India from 2014. Having dragged its feet over the 26/11 trial prosecution, Islamabad once again refused to cooperate after the Pathankot attacks. Pakistan started seeking intervention from the United Nations and other great powers and again ratcheted up covert support for militancy in the Valley.

These events had a compounding effect on the Valley, given the lack of dialogue to bring New Delhi and Srinagar closer. So, when Wani was killed, it provided an occasion for anger to burst forth. The state and Central government’s response to protests further aggravated the problem. For two weeks, the Valley has seen little activity other than violent protests being met with violent response.

What next? At present, we have an uneasy calm with sporadic outbursts. After a political paralysis that lasted 15 days, the state and Central governments have begun to pull together. What they will do is still unclear.  The Centre has promised that pellet guns will not be used against stone pelting youths until a committee decides on a ban. The state government has held an all-party meeting that expressed its deep sorrow over the recent deaths and injuries and called for a political initiative involving all stakeholders.

The impassioned parliamentary debates made several critical recommendations that stressed on the need for a combined political and humanitarian approach to the crisis. Among the most moving of responses was the maiden speech of a young MP from Meghalaya, who underlined the need to differentiate between the goals and actions of terrorists and the deep-felt grievances of the people, to follow through on peace agreements, and to consider amendment or repeal of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act.

Series of mistakes

The impact of the parliamentary debates has already been felt in the Valley. It eased the way for the all-party meeting, and an interview of former home minister P Chidambaram also had an impact, since he confessed that his government, like others before and after, had failed to come to terms with the broken promises of the past 60-plus years. Television anchor Karan Thapar pointed out that this was a brave and bold statement. It is the first time a senior political leader has accepted that his party, while in government, made a series of mistakes that should be rectified.

Taken together, the parliamentary debates and Chidambaram’s interview do indicate that Indian leaders have begun to introspect on what has gone wrong, not just immediate triggers of protest but deeper root causes, all of which devolve upon violation of the spirit in which Kashmir is acceded to India, for example through the erosion of the rights promised under Article 370 of the Constitution which codified the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh. Under this agreement, the Central government would have the final say on defence, foreign policy and communications, but the state government would control all other matters, including legislation.

While the BJP spokespersons have rubbished Chidambaram’s interview, they should remember how hard they made it for their predecessor, the UPA government, to initiate a peace process in the state. The primary responsibility certainly attaches to the Congress for the cumulative errors that have led to the present impasse in Jammu & Kashmir, but the BJP did everything it could to aid in the commitment of these errors while they were in the Opposition, including blocking efforts to get a peace process going in 2011–12 and some of its more egregious members’ continued attempts to roil the atmosphere with provocative words and deeds since the NDA government came to power.

Will the government now rise to the challenge presented by the current crisis in the Valley? The all-party meeting in Srinagar on Thursday called for an inclusive peace initiative. During the parliamentary debates, leaders of Opposition parties also expressed their willingness to be part of an all-party delegation to the state. It is hoped that the Centre does not treat the state all-party meeting as a substitute but sees it, instead, as a first step that will be matched by dialogue with a Central all-party delegation.

Equally important, this time the government needs to take a call over a political initiative on board. While a full solution can only be reached when Pakistan, too, responds to calls for peace, since Islamabad is in possession of a sizeable chunk of the former princely states, New Delhi can start the process with stakeholders in Jammu & Kashmir.

The Srinagar all-party meeting also called for picking up from where the 2006 Prime Minister’s Working Group on Centre-State Relations left off, which dealt with the issue of autonomy and whether it should be restored as originally conceived–a subject we also dealt with in the Interlocutors’ Report submitted to the government in 2011. This issue needs to be the starting point for a renewed peace process between the government and the people of Jammu & Kashmir.

(The writer was a member of the Union government’s Group of Interlocutors for J&K in 2010–11)