1. Home
2. Editorial

Talks and interlocution

Kashmir Times. Dated: 11/16/2017 12:00:00 AM

Govt should generate confidence, make the talks process more transparent and reach out to the alienated masses, Hurriyat

It may be premature judging the first visit of Government of India's representative for interlocution on Kashmir, Dineshwar Sharma to Jammu and Kashmir. But there is enough reason to believe why it did not get off to a good start. Leaving aside his career span which is at odds with the nature of his present assignment, his visit came after the Centre's double speak of talking to everybody without pre-conditions and equating autonomy demand with azadi, diminishing the hopes of goodwill that the exercise could have generated even before it started. Secondly, the terms of reference of the interlocutor are still not clear but certainly a process begun by a former intelligence sleuth is hardly a substitute for dialogue. At best it remains a process of assessing the situation and mood of the public. Thirdly, only a selected section of the public, mostly those who fully or partially agree with the government and the status quo on Kashmir, being involved in the exercise dampens the prospect of a holistic assessment. Fourthly and most significantly, there are as yet no signs of involving the Hurriyat in the process of interlocution, leave alone a dialogue. Though, the separatist leaders have thus far not showed any inclination towards any willingness on their part to meet the interlocutor, there was no such effort either on the part of the government. The meetings were fixed as per the invitation handed out through the state government. It is not clear who sent out those invites and on what basis the list of invitees was finalized. The separatist leaders were deliberately not part of the list. The only good thing is that Dineshwar Sharma expressed his willingness to engage with the Hurriyat leaders, without specifying how he was planning to do that when the invitation list did not include their names.
It is needless to point out that any exercise for resolving the Kashmir issue amicably through dialogue that ignores the Hurriyat leaders would remain futile. Hurriyat is an umbrella organization including majority of the separatist leaders and is the dominant political voice that represents an alternate discourse and advocates the sentiment for independence, which is an aspiration of a major chunk of people in the Valley and some other parts of the state. Talking to Hurriyat essentially does not mean an agreement with the views of its leaders just as it would in way be construed that Hurriyat is in agreement with the government's point of view if it decides to talk. An important element of dialogue is that different, contesting and competing claims can be brought to the table for a resolution. The need for resolution and dialogue is felt only where there are competing claims and there is scope for negotiation which is workable through amicable dialogue and flexibility. Officially, there is no word on whether the government or its interlocutor has already started a meaningful exercise to engage with the Hurriyat leaders. This in itself is a monumental task, given the lack of confidence in the government and an atmosphere of suspicions that imposes challenging risks of its own kind. Attempts of engagement through back channels without an open and explicit admission of the need for engaging Hurriyat and the alienated masses of Kashmir will not work. The legitimacy and scope of a process of engagement would be enhanced by spelling out the scope of the present process and a public acknowledgement of willingness on part of the government to reach out to these alienated masses including Hurriyat leaders. The more the government tries to do things in a hush-hush manner, the more it will erode the confidence of the people in this initiative which imbues no whiff of sincerity so far. Let there be greater transparency in the process that has been started.