The head of the three member group of the interlocutors Dileep Padgaonkar has indicated that the new report on Kashmir would broadly focus on the contours of political solution for Kashmir. And if it is so it will be a welcome change from Padgaonkar’s  statement during the interlocutors’ last visit to Srinagar in which he all but played down the political aspect of the problem in Kashmir. According to the statement only a small, but vocal section of opinion “harped on UN resolutions, plebiscite and self-determination resulting in independence for the state as it existed before 1947”. Padgaonkar also said that the most people that the interlocutors spoke to did not refer to independence or implementation of the United Nation’s resolution as a solution for the state but reiterated their faith in democracy, fundamental rights, pluralism and tolerance. People in the state, he said, sought the empowerment of people to enable them  to realize in full measure “their political, economic social and cultural aspirations”. However, while there is no denying the fact that the people in the state do aspire for the empowerment as would people in any other part of the country, it is not fundamentally the governance deficit – perceived or real – that constitutes the problem in the state. In fact, the nature of the problem in the state so far as it is known in New Delhi, Islamabad, Kashmir and, of course, across the world is well-defined. It is about the unresolved case of the political aspirations of the majority of the population in the state. And it is also about the lingering dispute over the state with Islamabad. Tackling the issues of governance which no doubt do exist in abundance on the ground in the state will, even if these are addressed to the satisfaction of the people will hardly change the basic problem in the state. It will be only a matter of time before the situation in the state relapses back to the familiar uncertainty and the popular unrest.  Therefore it is in the interest of the country that the interlocutors do not distract towards issues which any capable state government would be better positioned to handle, they should rather pursue a course that leads towards formulating a framework for a political settlement. And it is in this context that Padgaonkar’s assurance that the interlocutors’ new report will focus on the contours of a political solution can be helpful.  The report, if the interlocutors are to be believed will be unlike the earlier ones and will be “purely political in nature”. Such an approach towards Kashmir is needed if the latest effort at interlocution is to reach a desired goal. More so, after the interlocutors played down the larger political dimension of the state in their last statement in the Valley which had come as a drastic climbdown from the interlocutors’ own ambitious articulation of their role in the state during their first visit. They had started by outlining a role for Pakistan in Kashmir solution, terming Kashmir a dispute rather than an issue, even indicating that they would recommend amendment in the constitution of India if a solution warranted such a modification. The bold talk made BJP see red, but imparted the interlocutors’ mission a sense of possibility.  But the subsequent progress has been slow and without a sense of direction. A part of the reason has been the refusal by the separatists to talk to them. The statement that secession had little following in Kashmir has further complicated the engagement with Hurriyat factions and other separatists. The challenge for the separatists is now not only to stay a political course but also to re-invent the initiative by winning the confidence of separatists. It is only by engaging with the core sources of the problem in the state that the interlocutors can be hoped to productively contribute to the improvement of the situation in the state and eventually its solution. 

Lastupdate on : Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:30:00 Makkah time
Lastupdate on : Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:00:00 IST