Political correctness, moral posturing, party politics, ideology, humanitarian credos, anti-government bias, religious affiliation, secular convictions, chicanery - all these elements have figured in our national reaction to our Kashmir problem.

September 5 , 2016 Kanwal Sibal The situation in Kashmir has flared up again and our response as a nation is marked by confusion, as in the past. We have failed to find a way to deal effectively with the highly complex challenge the country faces in the Valley ever since Independence. Kashmir is a multilayered problem. It involves the country's territorial integrity and its secular democracy. It is laced with terrorism, communalism, Islamic extremism, ethnic cleansing, constant accusations of excessive use of force by security forces against the civilian population, human rights violations and so on. The narrative about the alienation of the local population has endured. On top of it is the external challenge from Pakistan, encompassing territorial claims, export of terrorism, instigation of violence, encouragement of separatism, fomentation of protests, and calls for international intervention. Political correctness, moral posturing, party politics, ideology, humanitarian credos, anti-government bias, religious affiliation, secular convictions, chicanery - all these elements have figured in our national reaction to our Kashmir problem. We have an elected government in Jammu and Kashmir. The most recent elections have been free and fair with substantial local participation overall. Why is it that these elections are not seen as giving voice to the people and reflecting their aspirations? If the National Conference wins and the Peoples Democratic Party is defeated in one election and the situation is reversed in a subsequent one, the electorate has established its will. How is it that these parties lose contact with and influence over the public when there is disorder? Who then are the real representatives of the people - these political parties or the separatists? Yet, the received wisdom is that the separatists have limited influence on the ground, one that does not go beyond their narrow constituencies, which is why, in order to avoid testing their real political strength, they spurn elections. The way the PDP and the National Conference are reacting to the current turmoil suggests that they do not consider themselves empowered representatives of the people with the responsibility of being out in front to control the agitating public, especially to counsel parents who are allowing their children to be exposed to police action and the danger of losing life or sight. This indicates that the channels of communication between elected leaders, both in government and in Opposition, with society at large have broken down. These very leaders say, nonetheless, that the majority of Kashmiris want to live in peace, that extended curfews are disrupting daily life, business activity, education and the like. If this is so, why are the rural areas inflamed and the current revolt presented as a popular upsurge without leadership? If the public at large wants peace it can have it, unless it prefers the current situation to continue in a spirit of defiance, whatever the cost. The elected leaders of Kashmir are throwing the responsibility of controlling the situation on to the shoulders of the Central government, asking it to reach out to all stakeholders and satisfy the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. These elected leaders should know what these aspirations are. Instead of speaking in generalities, why don't they spell them out clearly? They have said that the people do not want development, which is bizarre. If the people want ' azadi ', which literally means independence, do the elected leaders support this demand? The Indian government will not under any circumstances yield to the azadi demand, as another division of India on religious grounds will be disastrous for the country. If azadi is the goal, then even enhanced autonomy, which is proposed as a solution, will not satisfy Kashmiri aspirations. Such autonomy is likely to be used as a stepping stone for greater azadi still. Pakistan's instigation will continue, terrorism will not end, our security forces will still have to defend the border, the transformation of Kashmiri society from Sufism to Wahhabism will continue. The quality of governance in Kashmir will deteriorate even further as the freedoms and rights protected by the Indian Constitution will be eroded in an increasingly Islamized set-up. If enhanced autonomy implies close communication and freer exchanges with Pakistan occupied Kashmir without Delhi's oversight, tensions between Delhi and Srinagar will endure. Enhanced autonomy could well mean the eventual break-up of Jammu and Kashmir's present unity as, just as in the case of the Kashmiri Pandits, the interests of Hindu and Buddhist minorities in the state will suffer. The elected leaders are talking of the need for the government of India to talk to all stakeholders in Kashmir. This actually means talking even to those who are not stakeholders in India's democracy, secularism and pluralism, to those with no stakes in the Indian Constitution, and those that advocate self-determination in accordance with United Nations resolutions. This will include those who do Pakistan's bidding in perpetually stoking unrest and violence. The Hurriyat courts Pakistani representatives and is courted by them in turn. It has no stakes in India's unity. Its leaders consider the Kashmiris India's victims in the same way that the Palestinians are of Israel. Even the stone-pelting is a leaf from the Palestinian book. Are the terrorist elements in Kashmir stakeholders that Delhi must talk to? According to PDP and National Conference representatives, Burhan Wani was not a terrorist. He was a 'good' man, and even if he was a terrorist, for political reasons he should not have been killed by the security forces. Does this mean that were he still alive, he would be a stakeholder? Are the elements that wave Islamic State flags, the religiously radicalized groups, stakeholders? Because the PDP and the National Conference leaders advocate that India must talk to Pakistan, should we view Pakistan as a stakeholder too? The Opposition parties in India are ready to make matters worse for the country if it serves party interests. When a senior Opposition leader states that India has not honoured the promises it made to the Kashmiris in 1947 and must rectify the situation, and another accuses the Bharatiya Janata Party government of imposing the Gujarat model on Kashmir - implying a wanton killing of Muslims - and advocates the need for a dialogue with Pakistan to solve the Kashmir problem, the signal to those behind the turmoil is one of loss of nerve and disarray amongst the political class in Delhi. When one of these leaders also says that the Hurriyat has re-emerged as a major political force following the current turbulence and is eligible as an interlocutor, it shows a weakening of our resolve not to yield to Pakistan-supported anti-national elements in the Valley. If a significant section of the Kashmiris does not want to be part of the Indian mainstream, if it sees its needs met as an inward-looking, regressive Islamic enclave within a democratic and secular India and does not want to share the fruits of India's growing economy, if what we call 'our people' do not consider themselves as such and if the so-called 'misguided youth' are guided by an ideology that is spreading in the Islamic world, the challenge before Delhi will remain severe. Unfortunately, we have to continue bearing the Kashmiri cross but we have to make sure that we do not get crucified on it. The author is former foreign secretary of India