Kashmir: Need for an Internal Dialogue
11 May, 2000 · 354
Suba Chandran emphasising the need for an internal dialogue with the APHC says despite the outcome of there should be a meaningful negotiation
In recent weeks there have been some positive signs that the Central government and All Party Hurriyet Conference (APHC) might enter a dialogue on resolving the crisis in
Kashmir
. There has been no official confirmation, but it is believed that Mir Qasim, former Chief Minister of
Jammu and Kashmir
has been asked by the Central government to negotiate with the various Kashmiri groups. The Defence Minister, George Fernandes, also met the Chief Minister of
Jammu and Kashmir
, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, during the last week of April. Sayeed Abbas Naqvi, a BJP leader, visited the state during the first week of May, meeting various sections of the people. The APHC also seems to be responding cautiously but positively.
Kashmir
, with the security forces and installations becoming the primary targets of militant attacks. The Chittisinghpura massacre, in which the Sikh community became the target of the militant groups, add a communal angle to the militancy emphasising the need for a fresh approach. Moreover, the alienation of Farooq Abdullah's government from the people has made the Centre realise that over reliance on the National Conference, though a part of the BJP's National Democratic Alliance (NDA), will worsen the situation. Besides, the sudden passing of the State Autonomy Committee and Regional Autonomy Committee Reports by the Farooq government must have unnerved the Centre. Finally, the external pressures on the Indian government, especially after the US President Clinton's visit, has made the Centre realise the need for a internal dialogue with people in Jammu and Kashmir.
Clinton
's visit. Clinton had made it very clear that the 1948 UN Resolution on Jammu and Kashmir has been overtaken by time; ruled out American intervention in Kashmir; and stated that a solution must be found be "within the frame work of India's unity." Thus lack of support from the
US
would have made APHC to realise the change in the political environment. The APHC also would have realised that the various militant groups operating inside
Kashmir
, have started functioning independently. With the APHC being a platform of over more than 30 different political parties, religious and militant groups always struggled to reach any unanimous decisions. Having failed to achieve anything substantially in the past, other than conducting hartals, the APHC would have realised the significance of a dialogue with the Centre to gain its importance.
Pakistan
being the third party. It would be difficult for the APHC to agree on a dialogue within the “constitutional provisions”, as there is a section within it, which prefers total independence whilst the other is pro-Pakistan. In fact, a section of APHC is against any dialogue with the Centre, as it believes it would affect the militant movement and all that have been gained so far. The Centre has also been sending confused signals to the APHC, with the Union Home Minister L.K. Advani saying that the Centre has no plans for a dialogue, whereas the Union Defence Minister announcing that the response of the APHC was cool.
There has been enormous pressure on the Centre to negotiate with the Kashmiri people. The end of the Kargil war witnessed a change in the nature of militancy in
The APHC was also under pressure, especially after
Though everyone has emphasized the need for dialogue, both the parties have their limitations in initiating a dialogue. The Centre wants the dialogue to be held within the constitutional provisions and shuns any third party involvement. The APHC insists on a tripartite dialogue, with
Whatever be the hurdles, both parties should go ahead with the initiatives taken so far. The Centre has released only three APHC leaders from the jail. It can release the rest, to increase the pressure on APHC, as it has been claiming that unless all the leaders are released, it could not come to a conclusion. Secondly, though the APHC is expecting a formal offer from the Centre on the dialogue, an agreement could be reached, without making it public. In fact, there seems to be an understanding here, with Mir Qasim taking the initiative. Thirdly, the APHC should understand that, this is the right opportunity, as a section of the population seems to be interested, if not enthusiastic about the prospects of such a dialogue.
The dialogue may or may not succeed in achieving any major breakthrough, but this should not hinder both the parties from conducting any meaningful negotiations. The dialogue should be institutionalized, so that even if the current round fails, there exists a forum that could be utilized in the future.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
