NEW DELHI, 15 July — The state of Jammu and Kashmir is at a critical stage. The insurgency has not died out nor has infiltration been totally brought under control. Sporadic violence continues unabated.
However, the assembly election is round the corner. But the people, in the Valley, in particular, are cynical about the promise of “free and fair elections”, as they have not forgotten their past experiences. They do not see the election as a solution or as the first step toward an honorable solution.
The coming elections have acquired a special importance because it will attract interest of and scrutiny by the international community. The people are convinced that the Kashmir problem can be solved only through a political settlement between the government of India and people of the state, which is endorsed, or at least not actively opposed, by the Pakistan.
Separatists do not see their way to participate in an election under a constitution, which proclaims the state, including areas held by Pakistan and China, to be an integral part of India. But many prominent separatist leaders have in the past taken the oath of allegiance to the constitution and having been elected sat in the assembly. If a compromise was possible in the past, a similar compromise should be possible at this stage.
The participation in the assembly election by the so-called “moderate separatists” can, therefore, be brought about provided the central government announces a political package which should at least announce immediate steps for creating conditions conducive for a free and fair election, such as release of political détenues, reduction in the profile of security forces in the inhabited areas, minimizing the use of preventive and detention laws and withdrawing the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, which together virtually place the state under martial law and even a unilateral cease-fire.
Apart from these steps the government should invite all political forces for a unconditional dialogue, which may begin with a round table and then be carried further bilaterally or jointly with like-minded groups.
The problem about the political dialogue is that India is yet to formulate its long-term policy on the Kashmir question. Long repeated old mantras can be of no avail in the present circumstances. Nor can the country live with a split personality.
The Bharatiya Janata Party-led government sees the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir in the Union of India and the virtual, if not explicit, abolition of Article 370 of the constitution as the ultimate solution.
This explains the government’s refusal even to look at the autonomy proposal of the state government. Unless this mindset changes, there is no possibility of any breakthrough. There can be no other basis for worthwhile negotiations with those who demand much more than autonomy, either independence or accession to Pakistan.
It is a general consensus among the intelligentsia in the country that Kashmir has and should continue to enjoy a special status, that it should enjoy complete autonomy in its internal affairs. Autonomy is indeed the only magic mantra which can still attract the people toward participating massively in an election, under the watchful eyes of the international community to elect a truly representative government.
The position taken by the government is that all political groups should first unconditionally participate in the election and prove their representative character and negotiations on the political and constitutional changes may be taken up only after the elections.
This position becomes indeed farcical when one recalls the fate of the autonomy proposal. Moreover, a people’s movement does not need electoral spurs. It is there and the government has to meet the challenge. This point in any case is not acceptable even to the “moderate separatists”. If the government sticks to this stand, no constituent of the Hurriyat nor the Democratic Freedom Party or the JKLF can bring themselves to join the race.
Furthermore, such an election shall not serve as a moral restraint on the militants who may interfere with the process of election. Militant activity will naturally lead to counter pressure by the security forces before and during the elections. The people will then prefer to sit out of the election. The result will be an election managed by the bureaucracy and the security forces. Its validity, its freedom and fairness will all be questioned.
The government has already tried to make deals with various political forces, offering each of them specified number of seats. The idea is that if small anti-establishment parties other than the major players win some seats, this will serve to convince the international community that the election has indeed been “free and fair”.
B0ut such an exercise is not likely to fool international community or lull the people of Kashmir into acquiescence. Militancy will then continue.
The real question is how does the government change the heart and mind of the people of Kashmir?
Assuming that the militants in the Valley choose to keep it in a state of violence, the government will have no way out but to implement the plan of trifurcation and place the Valley under its direct rule and then wage a war of attrition against the militants, now with the silent support of the international community which does not see red if a nation-state endeavors to eliminate internal rebellion militancy or insurgency.
If the Russian can adopt this policy in Chechenya without the European Union raising a finger, why can’t the government of India? So say our strategists. But the price of this ruthless assertion of sovereign authority will have to be paid as ever before, by the long suffering people of Kashmir now and by the people of the subcontinent in the long run.
If the Kashmir problem is looked upon as a political problem, political negotiations must be initiated now, on the basis of a political package with the cross-section of the political leadership in the state. Such an initiative alone shall prepare the people mentally for an election, when it becomes a constitutional imperative.
(The author is a diplomat-turned- politician based in New Delhi)
