P.M. Manmohan Singh's visit to Jammu and Kashmir

On June 7th Prime Minister Manmohan Singh addressed the convocation ceremony at the Sher-e-Kashmir University in Srinagar. The thrust of visits by India’s various Prime Ministers to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) primarily revolve around issues of terrorism, peace talks with separatists, development packages and omissions and commissions of Pakistan. P.M. Manmohan Singh’s recent visit addressed these apple pie issues in the passing while hinting at his Government’s less conventional approach towards J&K. Militancy in the State has been declining. Traditionally, it is expected that the Government of India would take advantage of the situation and hold peace talks with separatists. P.M. Singh used his recent visit to reach out to the people of the State, rather than the separatist groups. The success of his effort may be questionable but the attempt of going beyond the terrorism narrative is commendable.

 
On November 17, 2004, P.M. Singh had delivered the Convocation Address at the Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences. The content of the speeches in 2004 and 2010 is not very different; however, the latter is devoid of rhetorical promises and slogans. In 2004, P.M. Singh called on the youth of J&K to help him build a ‘Naya’ (New) Kashmir. The P.M. even quoted a few lines from Rabindranath Tagore’s famous poem ‘Where the mind is without fear’. The speech at Sher-e-Kashmir University focused on issues like rail connectivity to Banihal Pass, Ladakh Renewable Energy Initiative, commencement of 14 degree colleges sanctioned under the Prime Minister’s economic reconstruction programme, efforts of the National Horticulture Mission and the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana. The 2010 Speech was less about future promises and more about on-going initiatives.
P.M. Singh held meetings with organizations which may be considered obscure by the observers of J&K politics: Khatamband and Papier-Mache Craftsmen association, Kashmir Kissan (Railway) Association, J&K Saffron Growers Association, Paddy Husking Mill owners Association, Travel Agents Association of India (J&K), House Boat Owners Association, J&K Apple Growers Association, Akhil Bhartiya Gujjar Maha Sabha, Kashmir Hotel and Restaurant Owners Federation, J&K Political Migrants Front, Shiromani Akalidal National J&K, Youth All India Kashmiri Samaj and All Parties Sikh Coordination Committee.

 
The frequent use of Urdu (the language understood by the majority in Kashmir) in P.M. Sher-e-Kashmir speech had great symbolic value. His call to the ‘naujawan’ (youth) of the State to make use of various avenues in the national mainstream for their holistic development, especially ‘zahni (psychological), jazbaati (emotional) and peshawarana (professional) taraqqi’ aspects is expected to have touched the hearts of his audience.

 
During his visit, the Prime Minister was expected to make a fresh appeal to separatists including the Hurriyat Conference for joining the talks. Though the P.M. expressed the government’s readiness to talk with the factions who were willing to shun violence, growth and development of J&K was not portrayed as being primarily contingent on the dialogue process. According to Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Chairman of All Parties Hurriyet Conference, “We expected PM to unveil a new political initiative on Kashmir. But nothing of that sort has happened.” P.M. decided to go beyond asserting the hope of peace emerging from ‘talks’ which are regularly stalled over petty disagreements.

 
However, despite the P.M. fresh approach, popular reaction to his visit was not upbeat and encouraging. The public inconvenience caused by the P.M.’s visit created unnecessary anxiety among the people. The jamming of mobile phone network, stalling of flights at the Kashmir airport and curfew like situation in Srinagar annoyed the people of the State.
More importantly, P.M.’s visit took place in the backdrop of the expose of recent fake encounter in Machil sector. In April 2010 the Indian Army claimed to have killed three infiltrators in the Machil sector along the Line of Control and declared that the infiltrators were Pakistani terrorists. It was later revealed that the the three men, Mohamad Shafi, Shehzad Ahmed and Riyaz Ahmed, were residents of Nadihal in Baramulla district, who were allegedly lured to the border area and shot dead. Just before the P.M.’s visit, a Colonel was removed from his command and a Major suspended in the Machil fake encounter case. The people of J&K were expecting the P.M. to reprimand the Armed Forces for Machil and similar Human Rights violations. The P.M. failed to address the anxieties of the locals.
In 2004, the P.M. had expressed his Government’s commitment to respect of Human Rights in the State, “Our security forces have been deployed to protect the life and property of law abiding citizens. They have been performing this task under very difficult conditions. The honor and dignity of our security forces oblige us to deal firmly with all violations of human rights of citizens. Our Government remains committed to this ideal.”
The Sher-e-Kashmir speech merely reiterated the earlier position, without addressing the issue a resolute manner. Avoiding any commitment to specific action, P.M. Singh declared that he was “aware of some complaints related to human rights. On this issue, the government policy is to protect the human rights of the people even when dealing with terrorism. The security forces in Jammu and Kashmir have been strictly instructed to respect the rights of the civilians. We will act to remove any deficiency in the implementation of these instructions.”

 
P.M. Singh’s J&K visit was toned down in rhetoric and commitment. He did not make promises which would be difficult to keep and neither offered solutions that would be impossible to implement. It is naïve to expect that the P.M. could have satisfied all sections of the population in J&K and thus he sought to focus on the possible without crating hype about the probable. Renowned journalist Praveen Swami rightly concludes that, “Instead of chasing the chimera of a historic peace deal with Pakistan and the secessionists, New Delhi seems to be realizing that doing nothing might, paradoxical as it might seem, yield the best outcomes.”