A new ``dialogue counter''

THE ONE POSITIVE aspect of the Government of India's open and broadspectrum `invitation' for talks to peace-desiring sections of Jammu and Kashmir is that it is the Atal Behari Vajpayee administration's first attempt to inject crucial political content into the peace initiative set off by the unilateral ceasefire nearly five months ago. In designating the interlocutor for the dialogue - Mr. K. C. Pant, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission - the Government has sought to concretise its oft-declared intent to talk to any group pushing for peace in the State and, in the process, opted for parleys at a higher political level. But the problem is that, in the name of broadbasing the consultation process, the NDA regime has set up a `dialogue counter', so to say, for people drawn from ``all walks of life'' to put forth their views on ``peace and how it can be attained in the troubled State'', and it expects non-government organisations, trade unions, social and religious groups, et al, to respond. The dialogue thus envisaged, which can be no more than a freewheeling exercise, regrettably suggests a casual and non-serious approach to a highly complex political problem, what with the Government declaring that the ``doors'' for talks are open for the All Party Hurriyat Conference, a conglomerate of 23 separatist outfits, as also Kashmiri groups that are ``currently engaged in militancy in the State'' but want peace to be restored.

In a way, the ambiguously framed scope of the `talks' initiative is of a piece with the Vajpayee Government's track record in handling Jammu and Kashmir related issues (both on the domestic and foreign fronts) and it is characterised by ad hocism, inherent contradictions and a lack of cohesiveness. Take, for instance, the State's legitimate demand for Constitutionally- committed autonomy, projected by Dr. Farooq Abdullah's Government on the strength of an expert panel's report, or the more recent question of allowing a Hurriyat delegation to visit Pakistan in the post-ceasefire context. The Centre's response dictated, as it has tended to be, by the political expediency of a particular situation, has been singularly devoid of consistency and has sent confusing signals to the point of straining credibility. In the case of the Hurriyat, particularly, the Government made an issue of the presence of pro-Pakistan Mr. Syed Ali Shah Geelani in the proposed delegation and scotched the visit by calculatedly placing it in the context of India's declared `no-third-party- intervention' position, despite the fact that the APHC had made it clear that it never visualised any `mediatory' role for itself. Although the Hurriyat team's visit may not yield any dramatic result, it would certainly have a tremendous demonstrative effect from India's standpoint by way of vouching for its sincerity in pursuing a political solution. Against the backdrop of the Centre's unyielding stand on the issue and the Hurriyat's high stakes in making the trip to Pakistan, the umbrella outfit's `no' to the dialogue offer is only predictable.

As for the militant groups, including the ones that are supposed to be `indigenous', such as the Hizbul Mujahideen, the response cannot be anything but negative as long as Pakistan is not brought into the picture. Not long ago, in December last, to be precise, while extending the `ceasefire' on the first occasion, the Prime Minister had spoken of his Government's commitment ``as the initiator of the dialogue process with Pakistan'' and had promised to ``initiate exploratory steps'' as were considered necessary. What needs to be realised is that any dialogue initiative that seeks to address the core issues of the Kashmir problem can be meaningful only if it recognises the mutual complementarity of the internal and external tracks of the negotiating process. There is nothing in the ``dialogue counter'' model (as has been unfolded by the official statement yesterday and judged by the Centre's own trackrecord) to inspire one's confidence on this score.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Insensitive decision