Is dialogue possible between Kashmir and New Delhi? How dowe answer this plain question?
Is dialogue possible between Kashmir and New Delhi! How dowe respond to this intuitive cynicism?
Let’s ask the Dalai Lama.
Just recently the Dalai Lama spoke at a conference in Delhi.He also took questions. I sent my slip forward: “How can a dialogue happenbetween a state, patently oppressive, and a people, continuously oppressed.””Put this question to politicians,” he left the question well.
I take it from the Dalai Lama and place it before thepolitician in Satya Pal Malik, the governor of J&K, as he became anewsmaker by telling us that the Hurriyat Conference is now ready for adialogue. He may answer, or choose not to.
I’m a student of Conflict, and Dialogue is one of thedominant themes of this subject. In the conflicted societies when we go out andpractice this subject we begin by making the cardinal differences between Dialogue, and Debate.
We tell the participants that Dialogue is always aboutdisinterested questioning, searching, probing. In contrast, debate is to batfor your opinions, and presumptions, and make sure that you lose no inch ofyour territory. It is to strengthen the already entrenched position. We tell them that debate is past-destructive,dialogue is future-constructive. Debate is tied to a feeling of despair and vulnerability,dialogue to hope, and security. Debate is accusatory, trying to catch the otherin some contradiction, and expose him. Dialogue is exploratory, offeringoneself to review, and revealing oneself.
If this understanding is applied to Kashmir’s relationshipwith New Delhi dialogue is a long shot in dark, to put it hopefully. Even adebate is not possible in an atmosphere of hostility, triumphalism, and asweeping denial of a problem.
Dialogue means through word. The medium of engagementbetween the parties involved is talking; violence, whatever its form, stays away. Dialogue is a ceaseless sharingof ideas to create new, and shared meanings. It is a relentless struggleagainst getting stuck. But right now we are stuck; and we are stuck for allthese 7 decades. New Delhi always thought that force was the final arbitratorin case of Kashmir. And for the cold rationality of a state it works. So, inKashmir, the substitute for Word is Sword. And instead of, as David Bohm says, “stream of meaning flowing among and through us, and between us”, thereis a stream of blood flowing among and through us and between us.
As a student of conflict, and as a person living with,through, and against conflict, I know, dialogue, a real one, happens in two conditions.Negatively, when it hurts the parties in almost equal measure – a hurtingstatement. Positively, when a democratic leadership decides to tell truth toits people.
Whatever we think of it, BJP is a political party voted bythe people of India to power. If this party, rather than triumphantlypropagating its stand on Kashmir, creates a room for truth-telling on Kashmir,dialogue will start taking roots. In Kashmir, if democracy is allowed toflourish, and a party voted to power by the people of Kashmir takes theresponsibility of talking truthfully about Kashmir, dialogue will flourish.Neither of the conditions is fulfilled, and we wish dialogue happens. There areno such horses gullible can ride.
When will India begin to tell truth to its people, let’sleave it to them. To the conscientious, to the reasonable, and to the gentle inIndia. India is not empty of such souls, and if it’s not mistaken, even theextreme rightwing is not as black as painted. It is a question of discoveringnew opportunities, and creating an atmosphere where these opportunities turninto real possibilities.
Here, Kashmir’s political leadership, and its civil society,are wanting in hundred different ways. We engaged with the state through themedium of violence. We thought we too can take up a sword to decide the matterin our favour. We forgot that this is the state’s own turf, and wars fought onthis turf are lost before they are waged. Power is a wilful non-listener. There is no communication between atotally powerless, and an absolutely powerful. For the last 30 years we havebeen trying to make power listen. But where are the ears.
It is time we turn to each other, establish dialogue amongthe peoples within, and with the peoples besides, and around us. This will,over a period of time, change our condition of powerlessness; at this frequencypower does listen. So the first act of change is to sit down individually, orin small groups, and unburden ourselves by talking unabashedly, yet gracefully,about our condition.
Let’s stop lying to ourselves. When we say that ‘themovement has entered a decisive phase’, we lie to our people. When we say wehave to establish Khilafat, through Jihad, we attribute falsehood to God, andto his Prophet. We call for a hartal, a strike, when a civilian is killed bythe state forces, and turn the other way when militants commit barbaric acts;we have been practicing this falsehood for all these decades. This must end, ifthe dialogue has to begin.
When Pakistan says it doesn’t support militant groups, itlies. When Pakistan says that it can go to any extent to defend Kashmiris, itdoesn’t tell us the truth. This too must end.
When India portrays the political movement in Kashmir asterrorism, and brands it as Pakistan sponsored, it’s such a big sized lie thateven Himalayas will get a complex. We can only pray that India stops manufacturing these mega lies.
If all sides stop telling lies, and ensure that violence isbrought to nil, light will start falling on Kashmir – exposures will happen. Itis for India, in that case, to resist any temptations to wriggle out of adialogue. It’s for the Kashmir’s political leadership, and the civil society,to act responsibly in that situation. It’s for Pakistan to orient itself tofuture, and not be chained to the past.
Remember, dialogue is Future-Constructive. For these 30years, we – Kashmir and Pakistan – havenot moved beyond Past-Destructive.