Who now really cares for any delegation, visiting Kashmir? Ever since the outbreak of 2016, popular uprising, many delegations have come, many more will arrive. The Kashmir dispute remains to be there, where it has been all along, threatening the very existence of sub-continent. Wajahat Habibullah's somewhat condescending attitude —"How much credit we can take but we don't want to. We are here to feel the pain of people and share their pain," — have led to stirring of some dormant emotions, however. Wajhat habibullah, seemingly is the permanent member of any fire fighting brigade, parachuted here, whenever a situation arises threatening the very control of Delhi over Kashmir.
Wajahat Habibullah had a long association with Kashmir. He must have fond memories of this place as well. Kashmir dispute has catapulted career of many persons to hitherto unforeseen heights. Wajahat Habibullah seems to be one among the many beneficiaries of Kashmir dispute. Many IAS officers have served Kashmir. We must add some have discharged their responsibilities well, with the best of their capabilities. Yet very few of them continued to occupy the highest echelons of power even after their retirement. Honestly speaking we don't hold any grudges against the man. Howsoever, little interaction we have had over the years, he comes across as a civilised person. Indeed we wish him well. Obviously there is no reason to doubt his intentions that he has come "here to feel the pain of people and share their pain". But we most humbly will like to ask a question, in the absence of a sincere effort to alleviate the pain, is it quite enough to share the pain, merely?
The situation we are faced with—deep suppression and soul stifling subjugation— for three decades particularly, any honest, moreover, fair minded person is bound to feel the pain. We thank you for your sense of qualified compassion. The compassion that is limited to stirring your passions to the extent of feeling the pain, only. Where is the remedy sir? We agree, conflict in-and-on Kashmir, is much complicated, hence beyond the capability of any individual effort, howsoever well meaning. For that matter it shall be naive to expect from an individual, even well placed in the corridors of power, to offer a solution to a complicated problem that of a Kashmir. For the least, we do expect one to be honest not only with innate feelings but his/her articulations also.
When "asked what has been outcome of their first visit to Valley" Mr Habibullah, like our own Hurryiat leadership seems to be suffering with a complex of grandeur. "The separatist leaders were released and allowed to meet each other, education system is back on track, schools have reopened and examinations have been conducted. How much credit we can take but we don't want to… blah blah, blah. Just as the Hurryiat erroneously likes to believe that they are the ones who created the popular uprising. Habibullah also seems to hold the belief that the visit of his delegation had acted as an elixir to dissipate the popular uprising. Why did you wait for four long months to make a first visit to Kashmir? Why were you people not airdropped the next very day of July 8, lest there be no bloodshed and loss of property? What a shame you had key to normalcy if not peace, still you waited for more than 120 days, to pay a visit. We hope that Mr Habibullah doesn't mean to say what that he seems to sound. As such he must be aware of the fact that every uprising even the most popular one eventually meets its attrition point. That's the nature of every human endeavour. Obviously for that reason only, situation presently in Kashmir seems to be coming back to normal. Hence the students are appearing for their exams, transport is back on the roads along with many other day-to-day activities gradually taking a pace.
Even if we have to believe the notion that gradual return of normalcy is not due to a natural process but a manufactured one. That's what we come to understand as a conflict management exercise. Again, Mr Habibullah is most qualified to draw a distinction between a conflict management and a conflict resolution. Since 1990 by dent of being a senior bureaucrat posted here and subsequently essential member of a fire fighting brigade, he is witness to every uprising, militant or civil, in both cases popular. Every uprising invariably has very nearly threatened New Delhi's hold over Kashmir. Yet New Delhi displaying tremendous staying power was able to overcome the threat, simply by wearing out the resistance, albeit for the moment only. Each and every weaned resistance gave way for another more intense and immensely popular resistance.
In this backdrop, we find your following statement simply disgusting: "We are not trying to resolve the Kashmir issue right now but we have to keep the resolution of the issue in our heart," he said adding, "The need was to work together with the people of Kashmir to bring back peace in this valley and to smoothen the ways for seeking the resolution to the Kashmir issue".
Mr Habibullah, why are you playing with words? You seem to be an honest person, of which peace you are talking about? Perhaps peace of a graveyard? Is a real peace possible without a real resolution of Kashmir dispute? Do we really need to remind Mr Habibullah that conflict management without a real urge for conflict resolution is a time tested tool of any occupation? This brings us to a simple question, are you part of an occupation or a real peace maker. Real peace makers, work for the peace tirelessly till the time a conflict resolution is arrived at. They are not the people, who arrive at the scene, violently woken up by a crisis, to douse off the fires. And they simply go back to sleep, once the crisis blows up. Kashmir has witnessed enough of bloodshed, Mr. Habibullah, hasn't time yet come to break the cycle of hypocritical dealings? Come on Wajhat Bhai, the self gratifying charade, now must come to an end. You need not to be a fire fighter, for rest of your life. Sincerely speaking, Kashmir now expects you to be an honest peace maker.