Dialogue has to follow PM’s mamata-ekta call

Arun Joshi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi appears to have spoken from the heart while spelling out his mantra to deal with the problem of unrelenting turmoil and alienation in Kashmir. The mamata (motherly love) and ekta (unity) he spoke of seem to aim at surpassing the not-so-clear, even if much hyped, phrases of Atal Behari Vajpayee — insaniyat (humanity), jamhooriyat (democracy) and Kashmiriyat (a traditional concept of coexistence and sharing of the cultural ethos of communities).

Mamata here translates to compassion, and ekta, of course, firmly implies integration of the state with the rest of the country. Unity and compassion thus run parallel in Modi’s new concept.

His “Mann ki Baat” on August 28 embarked on the narrative of “our people (security personnel and the young boys)”; “This loss is the nation’s loss” was an attempt to put substance into his style. The outreach is significant, provided subsequently there is consistency and sincerity.

Modi’s ekta also refers to dialogue with compassion, but within the parameters of the Indian Constitution, unlike Vajpayee, whose three mantras were pleasing to the ear but lacked realism.

Vajpayee was more an idealist than achiever. When it came to brass-tacks, he could not carry the hardliners along. The failed July 2001 Agra Summit with Gen Pervez Musharraf was testimony to that. The only common thread is Vajpayee’s insaniyat and Modi’s mamata, for unless there is love for fellow human beings, the concept of dealing with hard matters within the framework of humanity doesn’t gain meaning.

However, before embarking on dialogue with the stakeholders in Kashmir, there has been no effort to start a national dialogue. Indeed, Kashmir is an integral part of India, and it cannot be viewed in isolation of the national thought process. Yet, let it be admitted in honesty, here the term ‘nation’ means the rest of the country. At the international plane, the national dialogue could be seen as a tool for breaking the political deadlock between New Delhi and Srinagar, a legacy of seven decades.

There have been several debates on Kashmir – within Parliament and outside. Most discussions have centered on the past in a vain bid to find a way forward. A national consensus is missing, which cannot emerge unless the nation tries to accommodate various viewpoints from the right, left and centre.

The dialogue will also have to weigh in failures of the past and why progress could not be made. There were “golden opportunities” that could not be used — and the reference is not just to the Indian victories in wars over Kashmir. The immediate reference point should be the change of political and diplomatic climate during the Manmohan-Musharraf era. Manmohan Singh had gone to the extent of saying “borders cannot be changed, but they can be made irrelevant. There can be no question of divisions or partitions, but the Line of Control can become a line of peace with a freer flow of ideas, goods, services and people.”

He had also made a unique offer: “The natural resources of the state could then be used for the benefit of all its people. They need no longer be points of contention or a source of conflict. We could, for example, use the land and water resources of the region jointly for the benefit of all the people living on both sides of the Line of Control. Similarly, there are vast opportunities to jointly work together for the mutual benefit of our people. It goes without saying that this can only happen once terrorism and violence end permanently.” This was on July 15, 2007.

Unfortunately, the internal developments in Pakistan following the removal of Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Choudhry wiped out many ideas. But the fact remained that within India, dialogue with the stakeholders was jeopardised by the contradictions in our national thought. We have Parliament’s resolutions on Kashmir, but there is no political pact or strong effort to involve the civil society and human rights groups to chart a course to deal with this ever-festering problem.

Modi’s ekta and mamata have to have a follow-up plan. A new step needs to be taken. The three Roundtable Conferences held between 2006 and 2007 under Manmohan Singh did deliver working groups’ reports, a few recommendations of which were profound. Of course, the conferences could not be a substitute to a concrete national dialogue on Kashmir. It was an exercise undertaken when the going was good with Pakistan in the pre-26/11 era.

Now that the Prime Minister has shown the path, it needs national backing. All issues concerning Jammu and Kashmir, without ignoring the historical and external factors, should be deliberated upon to deliver a substantive plan. 

The necessity of national dialogue should be aimed at transformation in the perception about Jammu and Kashmir. The state is not all about the Valley, but the fact remains that this 80 mile x 80 mile geographical entity impels the discourse at all levels. Since 1990 – the start of the armed conflict – Kashmir has seen only increasing graves, and the rest of the country received body bags of soldiers killed in ambushes, encounters and suicide attacks. As was natural, Kashmir came to be seen as a land of “Pakistanis” and “jihadis” all out to decimate India and Indians. That is not true. They may hate India and want to be “free” of what they call “occupation”, but they are not against the men and women living in other parts of the country. They have sensed, and sensed it right, that even Islamic countries, including Pakistan, despite their high decibel rhetoric, cannot support them beyond a point.

The challenge is the new generation. It is looking for a hope and promise of being dignified citizens of the largest democracy. For that the national discourse would have to change. There are certain grim realities that cannot be ignored. Nothing can be imposed by hard power alone. Only a national dialogue can lead to consensus, which would have some positive impact on the Kashmiri mind, which is intelligent, prescient and knows where their interest is best served. The handshake must have a national authority, and a real feel of mamata and ekta.

[email protected]