Speaking from the ramparts of the Red Fort, on the 63rd anniversary of India’s Independence, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh tried to reach out to the people of Jammu and Kashmir for the second time in a week. Last Tuesday, taking a departure from the previous all parties meetings on Kashmir, in his televised address he tried to reach directly to the people of the State, more particularly the younger generation that have been offering resistance to the troops on the streets of the State for past more than two months. He made a fervent appeal to the youth for restoring peace in the state.
Prime Minister in this speech while recounting the positive things that have happened as result of the peace process and his endeavors for bringing about durable peace in Jammu and Kashmir sounded rational in stating that Kashmir problem was sixty three years old, and with his best intentions, it could not be solved easily or quickly. He had stated that to see ‘a permanent and just settlement of the problem’ that would protect honor and self-respect of all sections of the people of the State was his earnest desire, but this needed patience, wisdom and spirit of conciliation to guide us through ups and downs in the process. There was undoubtedly an undertone in the speech that he was desirous of ending six decades old political uncertainty in the state. And despite his appeal for peace apparently   not having  much impact there was an undercurrent that he was well intentioned   in finding a just and honorable solution of the Kashmir problem. But his 15th August speech from the Red Fort never seems in sync with the spirit of his past week’s televised speech. The speech was not only ‘cut and piece’ job as a leader in the opposition described it, but it seemed something dug out from the archives of the North Block. Calling Kashmir an ‘integral part of India’ he offered talks to Kashmiri leaders ‘within the framework of Indian constitution’. Speaking high about the ‘generosity and flexibility’ of India’s democracy and its ability to address concerns of all areas he affirmed  that New Delhi was ready to talk any person or group in Jammu and Kashmir that shun violence. The conditional offer of talks seen in right historical perspective is one step backward rather than forward. In the wake of the situation in the state in early nineties New Delhi often offered talks to Kashmiri leaders within the framework of Indian constitution but it found no takers. True, New Delhi was engaged with the ‘dissenting’ leaders through various ‘emissaries’ but direct talks between New Delhi and Kashmiri leaders started only after the barrier of ‘within the constitution’ was lifted.  It was none other than NDA government led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee that held talks with the Hurriyat Conference and other political organizations without prefixing conditions like within the ‘constitution of India’. Prime Minister Vajpayee had expanded the scope of dialogue both with the Kashmiri leaders and Pakistan by holding them, what he called, within the ‘limits of humanity’.  Even the 2005 talks between Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh and a section of Kashmiri leaders were held without any conditions.  It is amazing as to what prompted Prime Minister to retrace his own steps in opening a fresh dialogue with Kashmiri leaders. There can be no denying that dialogue is the only way out to resolve six decades old Kashmir problem amicably, peacefully and without a feeling of defeat to any of the concerned parties. But it is also a historical reality that pre-fixing any conditions has always defeated the process of dialogue in the past much before it could take off. Statesmanship requires that for ensuring peace and stability in the region there was need for holding a dialogue for the resolution of Kashmir problem with Pakistan and people of the State without any conditions. 

Lastupdate on : Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:30:00 Mecca time
Lastupdate on : Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:00:00 IST