Have talks, but within constitutional framework
To the extent that any sincere attempt to resolve the Jammu & Kashmir unrest within the confines of the Constitution of India is welcome, the Supreme Court of India's initiative ought to be viewed positively. The apex court has taken this unprecedented step on a petition filed by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Bar Association demanding a ban on pellet guns. While it can be argued that the Supreme Court can do little to resolve what is a political issue and which has also assumed the form of a threat to national security and integrity, its observations during the hearing are much the same as that of the Government's position: That cessation of violence must happen for the authorities to initiate talks with stakeholders. The court's blunt counter — that, can there be an assurance from the aggrieved section that it would not indulge in violence if the use of pellet guns was banned for a few days to create conducive environment — did not elicit a positive response.
The Bar association's petitioners appeared to be viewing the crisis from one end of the spectrum, holding the Government alone accountable for restoring peace. This cannot work, and the court tellingly pointed out to them that they were projecting violence only from one angle (the use of force by security agencies) and not from the other (the mobs on the streets targeting security personnel). The petitioners also appeared to be echoing the line that has been been adopted by critics of the India state, especially those stationed across the borders, that the elections in Jammu & Kashmir have been largely rigged. This is absolutely such rubbish that it deserves no further attention. Across the world, India has been hailed for the free and fair polls, and J&K is no exception. In the 1980s, a couple of elections were far from fair, but those were exceptions.
The Attorney General of India has rightly said that there could be no talks with unrest on the streets. There are two justifications for this position. The first is that no Government would want to be arm-twisted, and especially by a bunch of anti-national elements strutting about in the name of azaadi. The second is to find the person or group the Government can engage in a dialogue with. The separatists from the All India Hurriyat Conference are primarily responsible for instigating people to come on the streets, pelt stones at security forces, impede anti-terror operations and raise anti-India slogans. They believe in neither the Constitution of India nor the Indian state.
Their loyalties lies with Pakistan, even as they hold Indian passports and enjoy the privileges a free and democratic India offers its citizens. The Union Government has already made it clear that it would not engage in talks with these separatists unless they recalibrate their hostile and prejudiced position. This leaves the Government with other stakeholders such as mainstream political parties in the States and civil rights organisations, besides representatives from various sections of society, to talk with. This must admittedly be done post-haste, but even here, there must be a sense of responsibility from the political leaders. Unfortunately, in recent months, certain senior State politicians have been issuing statements that have contributed to muddying instead of clearing the waters.