A journey to nowhere

Apart from the bureaucratic lethargy, the recurrence of violence in Kashmir is pouring cold water on whatever work has been done to improve relations between the two countries. Who is instigating the terrorists or, more aptly, who is using them to sabotage the peace parleys? Many such questions bewilder the public. The bigger worrying point is: how does violence help to solve the Kashmir problem? This is not the first time that the terrorists have gone haywire. They go over the exercise every now and then -- throwing bombs in crowded places or shooting indiscriminately at people, including women and children. The security forces respond to the incidents, equally ruthlessly, caring little for the violation of human rights. At times, the security forces have themselves been the cause of violence. One side blames the other. This vicious circle has continued for almost two decades.

I thought that the terrorists or their masters would have realised by this time that no amount of violence was going to force India to agree to something which it did not want to do. If anything, violence has made the Indian mind more determined than before. The process began after the Kargil war.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The recent killing of pilgrims and labourers, when shown on TV, spread a sense of horror throughout the country. Tourists who had flocked in thousands quitted the valley quickly. An average Kashmiri is on the dumps again because what he earns from the visitors meets his yearly bill and also provides him with some leeway for the winter when he produces handicrafts and woolen shawls and carpets.

True, the terrorists do not want normalcy to return lest Kashmir goes out of the world's gaze. But how does it matter whether the problem is on the backburner or on the front one? Kashmir is at the point where it was decades ago. The only thing which has happened in the meanwhile is that thousands of people have been killed. The terrorists have alienated more Indians than before. Still worse is the communal edge that the problem has acquired, restricting the space of secular Kashmiriyat.

I concede that the parties concerned -- Kashmiris, Indians and the Pakistanis -- have to agree among themselves for a settlement. But this does not seem to be coming in the near future. What should happen until then? Even a layman will admit that the individual and the state terrorism have to stop for a congenial atmosphere for talks. But here all the three have a holier-than-thou attitude.

Let me begin with the Kashmiris. They are at best indifferent to the terrorists, if they are not their sympathisers. Once in a while, I hear the words of condemnation by the JKLF leaders. The Hurriyat too chips in with its remorse at times. The Abdullahs and Muftis, when in power, are worked up against the terrorists. But once they are not rulers, they rationalise the terrorists' acts. In fact, I find a conspiracy of silence among political parties in Kashmir. The Congress is no exception. Otherwise, it is difficult to comprehend why the terrorists get shelter in Srinagar itself.

My suspicion is that political elements in Kashmir have come to develop a vested interest in terrorism. They feel that it acts as a pressure on India. Probably, it does. The idea of the roundtable conference of terrorists (called separatists) and others cropped up only after violence cut a swathe through Kashmir.

India's own response to terrorism suffers from a particular slant. There is more dependence on the army than the political machinery even though the top brass have characterised Kashmir as a military problem. This may well be the reason why the proposal for demilitarisation does not take off. Even otherwise, when terrorism remains unchecked, no government can afford to take a chance, even though groundswell of opinion is in its favour in the valley. New Delhi is convinced that Islamabad has not given up terrorism as an option and "retains" the training camps and recruitment centres.

Pakistan does not seem to understand the compulsions of a democratic system. The terrorists cannot hijack it with attacks here and there. Parliament is in no way cowed down by the attack on it. I am afraid New Delhi is not getting the Kashmir problem right. True, there are separatists in the state and I do not rule out the Pakistan assistance to them. But that is only a part of the problem. The real problem is the people's alienation.

Sheikh Abdullah, who was instrumental in integrating Jammu and Kashmir with India, told New Delhi as back as 1952 that the Kashmiris should never be made looking like supplicants in the Delhi durbar. He said his people would rather starve than accept India's wheat given as charity or gift. The state had acceded to the Union of India on only three subjects: defence, foreign affairs and communications. The Sheikh did not want New Delhi's encroachment in any other field, directly or indirectly. His straight talk cost him not only the state's prime ministership but also some 12 years of his life in detention at Kodaikanal in the south.

With his exit, New Delhi, under the very nose of his friend, Jawaharlal Nehru, changed the complexion of Kashmir and disfigured its identity on the plea that all the states in the country had to have, more or less, uniformity. Despite the limit of three subjects New Delhi usurped a lot of other authority which was Kashmir's according to the instrument of accession. Worse, after the Sheikh's detention, the chief minister of Kashmir was first selected by Delhi and then imposed on the people through election. The state had never free polls except in 1977 when the Sheikh swept the polls.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was wrong when he sent a letter to the state chief minister to justify the Sheikh's arrest. Nehru realised his mistake. But by then the damage had been done. The country is still paying for it.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.