These past 50 days Kashmir Valley has been on the boil. Violent protests, police firings and unending curfew, following the death of Hizbul commander Burhan, have claimed 70 lives. More than 70 have been blinded by pellet guns and close to 6,000 injured, both civilian and police. The Centre has been adding to forces in the Valley but unable to break the impasse.
The Centre’s response to the Kashmir unrest has been faltering, at best. It was silent for over two weeks, and the state government was absent. Home Minister Rajnath Singh's first visit to the Valley after protests erupted was in late July and did little to mitigate the situation: though he suggested that pellet guns would no longer be used, the CRPF commander flatly contradicted him the next day.
Read: Kashmir continues to bleed for all historic failures
It took two sets of intensive debates in Parliament to push for action; the Government appeared reluctant even to accept the Opposition’s offer of an all-party delegation to the state, which was made on July 18; the delegation is yet to go. Finally, on his second visit to the state from August 23-25, Mr Singh appealed for talks with dissidents, promised that pellet guns would soon be replaced with non-lethal alternatives and announced that an all-party delegation would soon visit the Valley.
Is this too little too late or is it the first sign of a potential breakthrough? Anger is higher in the valley than even in 2010 (protests over fake encounters) and administrative and police morale is even lower. Neither Mr Singh's visits nor his announcements have had any discernible impact on the ground, where protests and curfew continue. Nevertheless, everyday that follows makes the present state of confrontation less sustainable, for both the Government and the protesters.
Read: BJP won’t walk the beaten track
The first and most urgent priority is to get talks going. The idea that talks can be held only when calm returns is ill-founded. Calm will return only when talks begin. Indeed, the lesson of what followed 2010 is chiefly this - no other measure, be it development, aid or skills training and jobs for youth, all of which the UPA tried between 2011-14, will succeed in the absence of political initiative.
Though the Hurriyat-plus combine -first time the two factions of the Hurriyat and the JKLF have come together - will not engage at present, it is possible to start talks with sections of the intelligentsia, including religious leaders, who have some influence in the Valley and seek gradually to enlarge the circle.
Burhan Wani's father, for example, has appealed for stone-pelting to cease and for a peaceful political dialogue to start. He is a new hero for 'the movement' but given what he has undergone I would not seek talks with him, rather with others like him.
At this stage the talks need to reassure that this time the government will indeed work towards a resolution of the political issues. Prime Minister Narendra Modi did hint his Government's interest in a lasting solution when he met Jammu and Kashmir Opposition parties on August 22; he, Mr Singh and Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti should lose no time in formulating a policy towards that end.
A first step would be to call an all-party meeting to input for this policy; it would in any case be a useful step before the all-party delegation goes.
The elephant in the room is Pakistan. Ultimately there can be no lasting solution without Pakistan, since it is in possession of a large part of the former princely state, comprising Gilgit-Baltistan and two districts of divided Jammu. Any talks on Jammu and Kashmir would clearly have to cover the entire state - this is not a big task, since the India-Pakistan talks during 2004-07 did cover all parts of divided Jammu and Kashmir.
Instead of insisting that Jammu and Kashmir is an 'internal issue' for India, the Government could push for talks with Pakistan to begin where they left off in 2007-08. Pakistan will wriggle but will be pressed by influential friends in the US, UK and China to come around. The Hurriyat can act as a bridge, especially to restrain cross-border militancy, as they did during the Vajpayee period.
Though much is made of the dissonance between the Government and the Opposition, as well as between the central and state governments, the biggest hurdle for the NDA may be to persuade its own constituents. BJP spokesmen continue to speak a different language from the government - for example, Sambit Patra says it is not possible to talk to secessionists, while Mr Singh is careful not to exclude anyone. Mr Vajpayee was able to silence even such vocal opponents of rapprochement as Bal Thackeray. Can Mr Modi do the same?
Mr. Modi has a rare opportunity to harness the support of the Opposition, should he seek a political resolution. Parliament debates were, for the first time, both introspective and wide-ranging, covering some of the most contentious political issues without heckling. Both former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and former Home Minister P Chidambaram have regretted that they allowed the potential for a political initiative to dissipate after 2011; they should surely be ready to do what they can, to make amends.
Indeed, every single Opposition party has shown concern for the situation in the Valley and expressed willingness to help the Government formulate and implement a policy for change.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir have faced three decades of brutal conflict. Though Pakistan bears a large part of the blame, we as a people and a state have our own sins to seek forgiveness for. More than 80,000 civilians and security forces have been killed in the state since 1989; we have never sought with commitment to use the interregnums of peace to build reconciliation. Kashmir is a blot on our democracy; we should for own sakes seek a lasting end to this conflict.
