When the Kashmir Valley witnessed an unprecedented civil disobedience movement in 2010, the Centre’s move to appoint a three-member committee of interlocutors was seen as a step in the right direction to get alienated Kashmiris into the national mainstream.
However, experts now feel that the committee has not only failed to address the political problem of the violence ravaged state but not suggested a clear political roadmap. The report is being viewed as “merely an administrative document’’ though the backdrop in which the committee was set-up was purely “political discontent.’’
Rahul Jalali, an expert on Kashmir affairs said, “Its shocking that there’s nothing political in the report. The committee failed to reach out to the Hurriyat and is completely silent on the separatists. This is just an administrative report though the core problem of the state is political. The report is merely another talking point which people will forget in a fortnight.”
As a former Intelligence Bureau chief said one cannot expect a government-appointed committee to give radical suggestions. “Obviously the committee could not have granted the pre-1953 status to the state,’’ he remarked.
Mr Jalali felt that there was nothing new even in the administrative recommendations made by the committee as in the past three committees had already examined these contentious issues at length. “Now they have recommended another Constitutional Committee. But why do we need another committee,’’ he asked.
But the former intelligence chief, who had been tracking Kashmir regularly, feels that the committee has made little movement forward. For instance, the “need to review erosion” of Article 370 and the financial arrangements between Centre and state. Similarly, consulting the state government on appointment of governor and the state suggesting a three-member panel is also being viewed as a positive move in improving Centre-state relations.
The official also felt that rejecting the demand for trifurcation of the state into Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh and instead recommending Regional Councils for them with executive, financial and legislative powers was also significant. But Delhi-based journalist Anil Anand says division of the state was a very limited demand.