Cannot afford to take U-turns on dialogue

When dialogue is demonised as a “sell-out”, it becomes an ugly word. The Centre has complicated matters by treating dialogue as an evil that grants justification to violence in Kashmir.
The PDP-BJP coalition government’s Agenda of Alliance states it clearly that the coalition will initiate talks with the internal stakeholders, including the Hurriyat Conference. The PDP is all out for a dialogue with separatists, while the BJP now refuses to acknowledge this crucial commitment.
The point 21 of the Agenda of Alliance recalls former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s initiative of talking to the Hurriyat Conference and the next point goes on to reiterate: “Following the same principles, the coalition government will facilitate and help initiate a sustained and meaningful dialogue with all internal stakeholders, which will include all political groups irrespective of their ideological views and predilections.”
Against this backdrop, the BJP’s U-turn is incomprehensible. The party has arguments that it cannot fall into the blackmail of violence. The failure of the 1975 Sheikh Abdullah-Indira Gandhi accord to decimate secessionism is evidenced in the National Conference bid to rediscover its secession-oriented Plebiscite Front days (1954 to 1975).
With the Simla Accord of July 1972, India displayed magnanimity by returning Pakistani territory and over 90,000 prisoners of war but this was reciprocated with terrorism by Rawalpindi. Pakistan has proved its untrustworthiness. However, the real issue is that India’s stakes are highest in Kashmir. The argument that no deal is better than a bad deal doesn’t hold ground here.
Kashmir is baffled. The Agenda of Alliance promised a dialogue without any pre-conditions. So why make stone-throwing an excuse now for not holding talks?
The reduction of the geographical area of conflict to three and a half districts of south Kashmir is a fallacy. The three districts of central Kashmir — Budgam, Ganderbal and Srinagar — made a dismal history with 7 per cent voting in the parliamentary bypoll on April 9. The violence was widespread all across the constituency.
In 2010, former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah saw the problem of stone-throwing confined to areas under Srinagar city’s four-five police stations. Later, it was found all across Kashmir.
Delhi believes it should not be seen holding talks amidst unrest following the killing of militants like Burhan Wani. But the basic requirement of resolving the conflict should be adhered to. The turnaround in political commitments will complicate matters, Kashmiris feel.
The military power is one part, but is that the only way India can address the Kashmir issue? It may give a macho impression of an unbending Centre, but dialogue is a democratic means of searching for answers to grave questions.
Even if there is no need for a dialogue, it will have to be invented for the sake of a smooth relationship between the state and the rest of the country. India has so much at stake in Jammu and Kashmir that it cannot afford to look the other way round. The danger is that the internal dimension may become purely an external one, with the international community disturbed by the happenings in the Valley. Now, besides Pakistan, China, too is staking claim — its troops are lined up along the Indian territory of Gilgit-Baltistan, which legally belongs to India.

Kashmir is baffled.
The Agenda of Alliance promised a dialogue without any pre-conditions. So why make stone-throwing an excuse now for not holding talks? The military power is one part, but is that the only way India can address the Kashmir issue? It may give a macho impression of an unbending Centre, but dialogue is a democratic means of searching for answers to grave questions.