That said, it would be good to note that unlike many other
occasions in the last few years, there was depth in Mr P. Chidambaram’s
words of October 14, 2009. We have become accustomed to references to the
problem in – and of – Jammu and Kashmir as a "complex" one that cannot be
solved "overnight". This has become a callous mantra seeking to legitimise
procrastination and worse, neglect. Chidambaram’s comments have decoded
these words in recognising and acknowledging the "unique history and
geography of the state". That this is being acknowledged to the citizens
of the state is a large step forward. In a sense, it contains a measured
middle-path response to the extreme positions of Jammu and Kashmir being
an "integral part of India" or the "jugular vein of Pakistan" while at the
same time taking into account important aspects of "the sentiments of the
peoples of the state". This is no less than a tacit acknowledgement of a
dispute. To demand overt statements on this is not only to be churlish but
to endanger talks even before they begin.
There are concrete reasons for hope in Chidambaram’s
initiative. The first of these is in the decision to hold talks
"individually" with "different shades of opinion". Second, we are told
that the initiative would be a "quiet" one. Third, the home minister was
unambiguous in his statement that the ultimate objective is to find "the
contours of a political solution".
There will no doubt be objections to – and naysayers for –
each of these criteria. For example, there will be a rush to denigrate
talks with various hues of opinion from Jammu, Ladakh and the Kashmir
valley (none of which are monolithic entities) as an attempt at
encouraging divergence in the face of the state’s natural diversity. But
if that is being done, it will become evident once the "contours" are
announced and can be rejected; there is a large constituency in all parts
of the state for such rejection. Similarly, to hold talks away from the
glare of the media will be interpreted as being secretive. But here we
have to make a distinction between secrecy and confidentiality. The former
suggests opacity, being kept in the dark. The latter does not rule out
transparency regarding certain aspects of the talks while they are in
progress. Towards this, the Government of India and the varied
interlocutors of stakeholders within the state must recognise, and create
a mechanism for, the need to keep the peoples of the state informed about
any progress. The third encouraging announcement by Chidambaram was that
he would attempt to find a solution to the political dimension of the
conundrum. By recent standards of attempted engagement from New Delhi,
that is a lot.
The current offer of talks by New Delhi is of a genus that
is different from the ones in the past. Chidambaram’s offer is seized of
the weight of the historical, political and legal dimensions of the
Kashmir problem. That gives it a different tone altogether. For their
part, the interlocutors for the state of Jammu and Kashmir will have to
recognise that the problem has become layered with the debris of time.
Empires have dismantled, new hopefuls assert themselves, armed violence
has replaced discursive politics in much of the world (historians attest
that the last century has been the most violent in human history by far),
the information-cum-communication revolution has not yielded its assurance
of greater understanding between peoples and the promise of a ‘new world
order’ is still evolving. All these factors will impinge on any
negotiations.
But the most important factor that should have a bearing
on the talks is this: the state, in its entirety, has been plagued by
uncertainty, disingenuousness, intransigence and war for 60 years. In the
last 20 years there has been enough violence in the valley to wipe out the
future of two generations of its youth lucky enough to survive. It is time
for civil society in the state, of all shades, to lend its voice to the
call to begin an uninterrupted dialogue. It is the only way out.
There remain, of course, the other side of the LoC and
Pakistan pieces of the problem. We cannot hope to resolve the conundrum
without addressing the Mirpur-Muzaffarabad strip and the Gilgit-Baltistan
issue. This must be accepted, equally, by Delhi and Islamabad. Similarly,
consensus between Delhi and Islamabad will be a critical ingredient for
any steps forward. The Hurriyat has called for "trilateral" talks; but
surely beginning the talks without Islamabad does not obviate the latter’s
locus standi in the dispute. It is true that some in New Delhi (which too
is not monolithic) would like to wish away Pakistan in the context of
Jammu and Kashmir. However, it would not only be unrealistic but foolhardy
to think that is possible. In part, it is precisely this proclivity for
wishing away a role for Pakistan that has invited several wars over and in
the state.
With apologies to Chinua Achebe, the Nigerian thinker and
writer, it would be apt to recount here a story from his rich repertoire
of folklore retellings to underscore the need to talk – now. There came a
time in the jungle, Achebe tells us, when its denizens thought it wrong
that King Lion should indiscriminately prey on his various subjects. So
they called for a council in the jungle square to talk things over. As all
the animals were headed towards the assembly, Fox noticed that Hen was
trotting away from the square. "Are you not joining in the discussions?"
he asked. Hen replied that she had an important task to attend to and was
happy to be told of the outcome later. On returning from her task, she was
told of the verdict. "We decided," said Fox confidently, "that it is
unfair of King Lion to prey randomly on us. So after much discussion, we
decided that he should only dine on hens!"
It is time to start talking.