Without doubt the three-member Kashmir interlocutors’ group — Dileep Padgaonkar (chairman), Radha Kumar and M.M. Ansari, appointed by the Centre in October 2010 — has worked hard and produced its recommendations after wide consultations across the state, although this does not mean much, given its deceit-laden history and its political dynamics circumscribed by jihadist machinations.
It is no discredit to the interlocutors (what a stupid expression conceived by the Union home ministry, one designed with no meaning and therefore having none) that they were unable, together or singly, and in spite of their best efforts, to make any worthwhile contact with the two “pro-secession” — these words should be handled with care — Hurriyat groups or the JKLF led by Yasin Malik, although the latter has long styled himself as the “Gandhi” of Kashmir. (Kashmir also has a self-styled “Mandela”, who is now in the Hurriyat — Mirwaiz; but “Gandhi” and “Mandela” may not be on speaking terms.) These circumstances underline the extreme complexity of the task that faces those — even if they are not connected to the government — who look to find ways to resolve the Kashmir question even as an academic exercise.
The interlocutors would have been aware of this but were clearly not mindful. Since the mission of the group was heavily people-centric — it was appointed following the visit of the all-party MPs’ delegation to Kashmir in the wake of the death of 104 young people in the stone-pelters’ agitation in the summer of 2010 — it appears the team felt obliged to pay undue attention to the emotionally-expressed, in-your-face victimhood that observers are apt to find in Kashmir. If this weren’t the case, the interlocutors may have been deterred from their key recommendations.
On the point of victimhood, when Kashmiris go public they tend to cast the responsibility entirely on the Indian forces. In private, it is often very different. Perceptive Pakistani observers have, however, noted that the jihadists and the religious-oriented outfits of Kashmir have killed and visited human rights abuses on many times more Muslim Kashmiris than Indian troops and state police taken together. The interlocutors could have at least pointed to this aspect in their report, which was made public by the government on Wednesday.
The review of all Indian laws applied to Jammu and Kashmir by a constitutional committee, as recommended by the three liberal intellectuals, would change little and impress no one in Kashmir. Perpetuating Article 370 — the crucial provision under which Maharaja Hari Singh acceded his domain to India — when it is inscribed in the Constitution as a “temporary” measure fails to take into account both history and future politics, including one that may involve Pakistan.