Is Mufti forcing Modi’s hand?

For long have we been used to seeing Jammu & Kashmir and the Kashmir issue through ‘national’ prism that treats anybody who disagrees with its accession in 1947, or protests the presence of the security forces, as “anti-national.” That discourse has changed with the fractured verdict in the last assembly elections and the birth, after weeks of “labour pain,” of a coalition government of two parties diametrically opposed to each other in ideological terms.

If the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) that won the largest number of seats has a separatist agenda, even if a moderate one, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the close second, has nursed an ‘integrationist’ platform right from the days it was Bharatiya Jana Sangh under late Shyama Prasad Mukherjee.

That the PDP was the biggest winner in the predominantly Muslim Kashmir Valley and that the “Hindu nationalist” BJP swept the Hindu majority Jammu region, truly divided their mandate, but also dared the two parties to work together.

The government’s formation has really been, in the words of Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, a meeting of “North Pole and South Pole.” That the twain have met, agreeing to work together for development of the state, despite differences that cannot be wished away, had instilled hope, not just of progress, but also raised hopes of peace.

One would have assumed that the two had reached an understanding on all issues, most certainly on the one relating to dealing with the separatists of all hues. And for the reason, one would have thought Mufti would measure his moves thoughtfully.

That does not seem to be the case. It is difficult to conclude whether it is lack of faith or lack of patience on his part, judging by the hurry with which he has taken what seems a ‘hard’ decision, within ten days of taking office. His releasing hardline separatist Masarat Alam Bhat, who has spearheaded many a protest, the last one being in 2010 in which 112 youths were killed, has queered the pitch with alliance partner BJP and with the Union Government, whom he had neither consulted, nor informed. He may be right in technical terms, but he has certainly let down the Centre, especially Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

If it is lack of patience, which, one would hope it is, he can still plan his moves gradually, even if they are meant to fulfill his party’s “soft separatist” agenda. He could have opened the dialogue with the moderate faction of the Hurriyat Conference led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. He has, instead, reached out to one of the most unyielding hardliners, who is general secretary of the Hurriyat Conference’s hardline faction led by Syed Ali Shah Gilani. Also the chief of the Muslim League, Masarat Alam, 44, is widely seen as the likely successor to the ageing Gilani.

Masarat’s release was followed by Gilani’s meeting with Pakistan’s High Commissioner Abdul Basit. Basit’s meeting with Hurriyat leaders in July last year, despite a warning from India’s External Affairs Ministry, led to the cancellation of the foreign secretary level talks. Expectedly, the meeting would make Islamabad and the hardliners among the separatists jubilant.

Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar met his Pakistani counterpart, but as part of the SAARC initiative and no dates have been fixed for a bilateral dialogue that Pakistan has been pressing for. The question is, how and when can Union government resume the bilateral dialogue, when – facilitated by Srinagar – the separatists put their thumb on the nose, mocking at New Delhi.

Following Masarat’s release, the Modi government came under severe attack in Parliament and outside, when even the allied parties are upset. Modi was forced to not just dissociate his government from Sayeed’s move, but also issue a not-so-veiled threat while assuring Parliament that the Centre would take measures for which it armed.

That he berated his critics in the House that he did not need to take lessons in patriotism from them indicates his unease and an unenviable position he is placed in.

Reports indicate that while not insisting that Masarat be re-arrested by the state, he may be kept “under watch” with cases pending against him being transferred to the National intelligence Agency (NIA). This move, while satisfying the mood in the rest of the country, is fraught with risks of causing a furore in the State.

If it is not lack of patience, but of faith, on the part of Sayeed, then he may force the Centre’s hands. That would be bad for the troubled State, for the longevity of the new government and for India, since the world is watching how it resolves its oldest dispute and reinforces its credentials as the world’s largest democracy.

By: Mahendra Ved