As Jammu and Kashmir’s oldest regional party, the National Conference (NC), ratchets up its criticism of New Delhi and separatists on their failure to address the Kashmir problem in a bid to reinvent its politics in the conflict-ridden State, the party’s working president and former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah speaks on the Centre’s appointment of a special representative, Dineshwar Sharma, to initiate dialogue, the past failures of governments, and the way forward. Excerpts:
Will the government’s appointment of Dineshwar Sharma yield results?
If the intent is there and the idea is to have sustained political dialogue, we will welcome it. My worry is that New Delhi seems confused as to who Mr. Sharma is and what his role is. By who, I mean his designation. A Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, no less, said, ‘Don’t call him an interlocutor’. There is confusion about who Mr. Sharma is mandated to speak to. The Union Home Ministry’s order was unclear about his exact mandate.
On the question of separatists, the Centre said he is free to decide who he wants to speak to. Mr. Sharma is not representing himself but the Indian government. He, in his personal capacity, may want to speak to Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, or Yasin Malik, but that doesn’t matter to me if the government doesn’t want to speak. It’s important that the government remove the confusion around his mandate. I am not sure if there is a time frame or an end goal. A dialogue without a purpose is meaningless. I am yet to understand what the purpose is other than keeping the engagement going.
What is the possible key to make the interlocutor deliver?
Dialogue for the sake of dialogue is pointless. We hope that there will be some clarity from the Central government in the forthcoming session of Parliament. Mr. Sharma has a tougher job than previous interlocutors because none of the previous interlocutors’ efforts were taken anywhere close to the logical conclusion. People are not wrong when they ask questions like, ‘What good is this?’ That is why there was a cold reception for Mr. Sharma on his first visit. You can’t blame people for not being interested in talking.
Both factions of the Hurriyat have demanded revocation of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the release of political prisoners, demilitarisation, and an end to the violation of human rights for a dialogue process to start. Has the time come for a grand gesture from New Delhi?
The Hurriyat making these demands as a precondition to dialogue also makes the government set preconditions. Let the Hurriyat say, ‘We want unconditional dialogue with the government’. These conditions should be a part and parcel of the initial dialogue between the Hurriyat and New Delhi. The move to remove cases against first-time offenders came at the behest of Mr. Sharma and was announced by the government. It may not have been a very grand gesture, but it is a start. If the Hurriyat is asking for everything as a precondition, what will they talk about?
Many suggest that the Bharatiya Janata Party has made a U-turn on Kashmir by offering to engage in dialogue with the separatists.
I am not convinced yet that it’s a U-turn because I have not seen any indication that they are keen to engage separatists at the level of Mr. Sharma. Keenness to engage was displayed by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee when he met separatist leaders at 7, Race Course Road.
The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) engaged both separatists and Pakistan in the past. What motivated the NDA to take the leap then and what stops it now?
It was the realisation that there are two facets to the problem in J&K: internal and external. If we want to solve this problem once and for all, we can’t do it by resolving one part of the problem. I don’t see a situation where this dialogue will become what the Hurriyat calls ‘trilateral’ — where India, Pakistan and representatives of J&K are at the same table. But that doesn’t stop parallel dialogues from taking place at the same time — New Delhi engaging J&K and Pakistan. One has read reports of a backchannel engagement with Pakistan but visibly there is very little to suggest that the two countries are talking to each other. Unless we resolve both aspects of the Kashmir problem, this will continue to fester.
The Centre claims that the Army’s ‘Operation All Out’ and the National Investigation Agency’s raids helped improve the ground situation. Do you buy that?
I would have bought that if it wasn’t [for the fact that] the State government itself said that the situation is so bad that we can’t have panchayat elections and for the Anantnag parliamentary seat. The rest of the statements are meaningless. There is not a single day when an encounter is not taking place. Even militants are able to strike aggressively in areas hitherto unknown, like Zakura. Killing 200 militants is no success but a failure. The fact you were forced to kill 200 militants shows that you allowed the situation to reach a point where there are that many militants active in J&K. If I was in their place, I would not be bragging about it. The part that they are silent about is the extent of losses to security forces, which has also gone up in recent years.
J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti says there are chances of Kashmir becoming Syria and Iraq. Have we reached that point?
Absolutely not. When was the last time Ms. Mufti visited Iraq or Syria? All she needs to do is see the visual images coming out of Syria. Don’t play to the galleries. Even in the 1990s, when the situation was worse, we were nowhere close to the situation in Iraq or Syria. It shows her poor understanding of what J&K is all about.
You mentioned the Zakura attack, which was claimed by the Islamic State’s online magazine. Do you think militancy can take a new turn here?
I very much doubt that. I have no recent evidence to base my scepticism on. Until 2014, whatever intelligence reports I saw, nothing suggested to me that the Islamic State or al Qaeda were realistic threats to J&K. There have been more IS recruits in Kerala than in Kashmir.
NC president Farooq Abdullah talks about Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) being part of Pakistan. Is the NC acknowledging the Line of Control (LoC) as a permanent border?
What he said is not new. PoK does not belong to Pakistan but is occupied. A solution will fall in the scope of LoC being turned into a permanent border and then being made a soft border. I don’t see why it should create such a furore. The truth is, for any solution to work between India and Pakistan, it will have to be a solution where neither side can claim victory. That is possible if there is no further give and take of territory. My limited question to the BJP, which got outraged by Dr. Abdullah’s remarks, is this: If you disagree with Farooq sahib, please do something about PoK. You are mandated by a unanimous resolution of Parliament in 1994 that Pakistan should vacate the territories held by it in Kashmir. Do it. You have a 56-inch chest, you do surgical strikes at will. Why Operation All Out here, do it there also. You have accepted by your inaction that a part of Kashmir is now with Pakistan, which is a reality.
Your party supported the Instrument of Accession between J&K and India in 1947. Do the court petitions against Article 370 and Article 35(A) infuse any sense of betrayal for you ?
Betrayal is a harsh word. It’s true that New Delhi has not been fair to J&K. New Delhi expects that the State will live up to its commitment of 1947 to be a part of India without fulfilling its part of the deal. The deal was that accession was conditional and India will deal with currency, communication, defence and foreign affairs. But New Delhi changing the terms and J&K not being able to complain about it, that is inherently unfair. That unfairness needs to be done away with. That is the premise on which the NC has based its greater autonomy demand. Ours is the only conditional accession in the country.
Congress leader P. Chidambaram talks about granting autonomy to J&K. What stopped him and his party from granting it when they were in power?
Mr. Chidambaram had the same views then. What stopped him was that he was in a Cabinet where he had to carry other colleagues with him and he wasn’t able to do it. There isn’t a consensus in the Congress on autonomy even today. It disowned Mr. Chidambaram’s views. Considering that greater autonomy to Kashmir is a legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru and not the Sangh Parivar, one would have expected the Congress to be more forthcoming, and own an important part of that legacy. That is the disappointing part. I guess the Congress thinks it has to operate in the India of today and not of 1947. It’s real politics that trumps legacy.
The Peoples Democratic Party-BJP relationship has not been smooth in the past one year. Was the BJP in touch with the NC for an alternative?
There was no approach made to me for a realignment of political forces in J&K. As far as I know, there was no approach made to my father either. May be with some lower-rung NC leader there was conversation from the BJP on the sidelines of some foreign trip. That was a conversation that they have had, but there has been nothing actionable.
There is new buzz around Rahul Gandhi, who has been elected Congress President. What has changed about him since you know him closely?
He went to the U.S. and something changed. In all fairness, I think the coverage he got from his visit to the U.S. was a lot more balanced and fair than the coverage within his own country. He is still the same person. He is saying roughly the same things in the same manner. I think it’s because we are getting to see the real him as opposed to the image that some channels tried to create. That is the only thing that has changed. Some news channels continue to run tickers and hashtags in an unfair manner. The general population seems to be willing to give him more of a chance.
