BJP has failed to defuse Hurriyat
A photograph in the front pages of newspapers on Monday, September 5, is symbolic of the Centre's missed opportunity in taking the lead on the continuing violence and disquiet in Jammu and Kashmir.
The picture depicts Sitaram Yechury, Sharad Yadav, D Raja and Jay Prakash Narayan (RJD) standing outside the door of Hurriyat leader SAS Geelani and being denied entry to the house. Other separatist leaders also refused to meet members of the all-party delegation although Yasin Malik grudgingly met Sharad Yadav but declined to talk on the current situation.
An all-party delegation is as bipartisan as any political platform can get and sending the group was undoubtedly a significant indicator of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his home minister Rajnath Singh altering their stance on the issue. Yet, there is no gainsaying that the refusal of the Hurriyat leaders to exchange ideas with representatives of any party would have had a greater impact had it occurred at the onset of the crisis and not after repeated criticism of the Centre's non-action.
Make no mistake, the Hurriyat leaders would have turned down an opportunity to talk even if it had come weeks ago. The situation has deteriorated from what it was in 2010 when Geelani met Yechury and Ramvilas Paswan when they came knocking.
The photograph is representational of the failure of the Modi sarkar in dealing with the H-factor while dealing with Pakistan or while navigating the way ahead in Jammu and Kashmir. In its statement released on Sunday (September 4), the Hurriyat made it clear that it is not interested in talks with representatives of the Indian State.
 |
| CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury and CPI's D Raja waiting outside the door of Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani in Srinagar. (Photo: PTI) |
The Centre failed to read this despite the Hurriyat's refusal to formally meet the all-party delegation in 2010. What then would have been risked if this delegation had been taken to the Valley in July or the latest in August?
Protesters, who would have flooded the streets back then, have still turned out and it has been demonstrated that the situation is far from normal. An opportunity to establish that Hurriyat leaders have a forked tongue has been lost. They have consistently demanded inclusion in dialogue but baulked when the opportunity literally came knocking on their doorstep.
The Hurriyat has no intention of entering into formal dialogue and their game has to be exposed. By refusing talks, the BJP always conveys that it fears meeting separatists whereas the sentiment is the Hurriyat's.
Rajnath played to the Hindutva gallery from Srinagar with the "Kashmir hamara tha, hamara hai, hamara rahega" (Kashmir was, is and will always be an integral part of India) pitch with an obvious eye on consolidating the Hindutva vote bank outside the Valley - in Jammu and beyond.
The statement was an obvious riposte to the Hurriyat's comment that no dialogue is possible within the framework of the Indian Constitution.
It is time that Rajnath or other members of the Sangh Parivar graduated from stating the obvious. Every Indian government is legally bound to converse within the constitutional framework but the Hurriyat does not have such limitations. Additionally, its claim of being the representatives of the Kashmiri people are hollow and no law limits its existence. Separatists prosper by provocation and the Hurriyat is no different.
 |
| Hurriyat leader SAS Geelani. (Photo: PTI) |
This privilege is not with the leaders of the two main political parties of the region, the People's Democratic Party (PDP) and National Conference (NC) who brave separatist sentiment and persuade people to participate in the only legitimate electoral possible in the entire Kashmir, including PoK.
The all-party delegation's visit to Srinagar was not expected to "resolve" any aspect of the knot that Kashmir is in. Given the delay involved in a team of this nature visiting a troubled region, the alienation of the people has got more deeply entrenched. For almost a month-and-a-half, the Centre ignored even the legitimate chief minister and her government, not to speak of the people.
From the beginning the BJP's Kashmir policy has been guided by the desire to use it to solidify its stranglehold over its core constituency. Correspondingly, an issue that was inherently ethno-regional in character to start with has acquired a pronounced communal tone. There is no dearth of Hindutva supporters who argue that the situation in Kashmir is accentuated by the M-factor.
The "them versus us" relationship is not ethnically framed but communally posed and nuanced differentiation in the plight of Kashmiri Pandits with others in the state is presented as another instance of "appeasement of Muslims".
Despite the all-party delegation's visit being viewed as a non-event, there are important takeaways. Yasin Malik told Sharad Yadav that he would come to Delhi and talk. The autumn nip will soon morph into a bitter winter when infiltration is normally reduced to a trickle.
Though Mehbooba Mufti has thrown her weight behind the Indian State, the presentation of Jammu and Kashmir finance minister Haseeb Drabu, in which he pressed for a review of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), ban on pellet guns and release of funds from New Delhi, must be seen as a list of expectations of the people and be addressed.
What Farooq Abdullah observed must be factored in because he returned from the meeting with Modi convinced that the prime minister had abandoned his partisan approach.
Modi would surely be aware that the Centre does not have many friends, especially when it comes to demonstrating street might. To be able to counter protests and restore a semblance of normalcy, the limited friends that the Modi government has must be cultivated and if this means arming them with more than what he wishes to give, he must do so.
In 1997, when IK Gujaral became prime minister, relations with Pakistan had reached almost a position of standstill. But he ploughed the barren field and eventually the two nations succeeded in listing eight issues on which they would limit their composite dialogue process. Modi must miss no opportunity to talk with anyone willing to evolve a framework of dialogue.
This must be accompanied by not just a development spiel, but by genuine steps to kick-start action on implementing what the PDP and BJP promised to the people when they formed the government. The Centre must be guided by the reasoning that it has more stakes in peace than anyone else.