The unilateral ceasefire has been successful in influencing the situation in Kashmir, so far, as it has put an end to the cycle of killings and gunfights that had become a new norm here. By shutting out all the negative noises, the ceasefire has once again rekindled the hope for a dialogue process in Kashmir. Though the absence of violence is not a prerequisite for entering a dialogue process but circumstances in Kashmir have remained such that some parties (spoilers) have always remained hell-bent to derail the possibilities of a dialogue process — just to stay relevant and nothing more.
More to the point, the state and central government should not consider the ceasefire simply a favorable political condition for picking up the rhetoric but it has to be looked upon as an opportunity for setting up confidence building and trust building measures among people, and also ensuring the transition of ceasefire to a dialogue process.
“It is easier for the separatists’ to lay down the conditions for a dialogue process, besides holding other parties responsible for the failure of previous dialogues than it is to deal with their own underlying issues and weaknesses.”
There are some important requisites that apply to all the parties involved in a particular dialogue process. First of all let me posit as what is needful for the centre and state government to pave way for a meaningful dialogue process and thereby its changeover to a peace process.
First thing first: The dialogue process should necessarily lead to a peace process, otherwise mere talks are going to serve no purpose, and it is only possible when peace is not just thought to be achieved but it is endeavored to be maintained. Moreover, a peace process would require the establishment of transparent, independent and trustworthy committees that will address the grievances and previous injustices with the regard to common people.
Also, without the involvement of such parties (violent) who have the leverage over violence, the dialogue process cannot be sustained as a peace process.
Now before putting forward some suggestions and recommendations for the separatists’ with regard to the dialogue process, I would like them to realize an important fact first: “It is easier for the separatists’ to lay down the conditions for a dialogue process, besides holding other parties responsible for the failure of previous dialogues than it is to deal with their own underlying issues and weaknesses.”
Now talking about suggestions and recommendations: One thing to bear in mind for the separatists is that dialogue processes are deals more like business ones and there is nothing like something for nothing rather it is something for something. This is the general rule for any dialogue process to succeed and by holding this approach for the dialogue process the separatists can get most out of it.
Coming back to the ceasefire, some people are of the belief that ceasefire is a military concept that applies to militants and government forces only but if we will analyze the concept of ceasefire just under a military point of view then it amounts to defeat but under a political point of view it is a success as the concept of ceasefire tends to bring with it a degree of prudence, rationale and strategy. Ceasefire may mean nothing more than a ceasefire for a stronger party but on the other hand the ceasefire should be seen as an opportunity by a weaker party so that it can identify as where it is being heavily impacted; also it is a time grabbing opportunity for a weaker party to reorganize itself and above all coming forward for repairing the physical and psychological damage suffered by the people.
The right interpretation of public opinion is vital to a successful dialogue process but unfortunately the approach of separatists with regard to “dissenting” in Kashmir has remained such that it has led to schism, predominately because of remaining ignorant to fact that beneath all the difference, we all are same, and they have effusively labeled people on the basis of their political convenience – the “leaders of resistance” possessing the political convenience is really a mismatch as the goal of a resistance leader should be to bring the people in general and groups in particular on a common ground.
It goes without saying that separatists have brought themselves to a level where they are literally left with no demands for entering a dialogue process but are entitled to a few “dictated terms” and they should stop pretending like otherwise. With no leverage over the dialogue process, the separatists will be caught in the mire of “personal stakes” – the reason why dialogue process will fail to benefit the common people.
Tailpiece: From last thirty five years or thereabout Kashmir has remained a centre stage for the status quoist politicians who have thrived on the politics of adhocism. A political alternative is a way forward!
