The first move towards this end was to unite their ranks—that were split in 2003—under the leadership of pro-Pakistan hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani. It is he who has been calling the shots in the APHC, whether it is to unfold a calendar for hartals or spurn chief minister Mehbooba Mufti’s request to hold talks with the parliamentary delegation. The hardening of Hurriyat’s stand may enable it to regain some of the ground it has lost in recent weeks. But it could also work to its disadvantage.

It is important—and imperative—to remember that the invitation was a half-hearted attempt to talk to the separatists. It was neither issued by Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh, nor did it go on behalf of the Jammu and Kashmir government, of which the BJP is a part. On the contrary, the BJP distanced itself from the invitation by ensuring that Mehbooba wrote to the separatists not as CM but as PDP president. Moreover, some MPs went to meet the separatists in their individual capacity.

The all-party delegation led by the Home Minister met some 300 Kashmiris. That is not a small number. What grabbed the headlines, however, was the Hurriyat leaders’ refusal to meet parliamentarians, including Sitaram Yechuri of the CPI-M, Sharad Yadav of the JDU and D Raja of the CPI, who apparently took the initiative at their own level.

The summary of issues raised during the all party delegation’s interaction with political parties and other sections in Kashmir list the need to investigate funding of “newly built madrassas” and spurt in radicalization and the assessment in some quarters that mainstream society will be weakened if the current agitation continues.

The document, which MPs said is an exercise of reflection of a variety of views they heard, speaks of the need to strengthen measures to stop smuggling of drugs from Pakistan and deal firmly with cross-border terrorism.

Corruption which was also identified as a “major issue” in J&K, with the delegation being told that no public servant has been investigated for graft so far and that the agenda of the ruling alliance needs to be implemented.

The document notes that the protests were most intense in South Kashmir accounting for 84 per cent of deaths with 29 per cent in Anantnag alone. This also included deaths of two security personnel. On the whole, 5,560 security force personnel and 7,550 civilian were injured, six persons lost sight completely and 21 in one eye. Some 127 people were admitted to hospital and 7,423 have been discharged.

While the state government’s failings were brought to the delegation’s notice, MPs were also told that that Hurriyat separatists should be isolated and the arrests under Public Safety Act should be fair. Release of prisoners and more care should to ensure that youths are not harassed were also mentioned.

There were call for relief package for those hurt or kin of those killed in protests and demands use of pellet guns should be halted. Increased job opportunities and initiatives to set up major industries were also seen as measures to improve the situation.

On political side, some sections suggested the talks should be held with Pakistan and Hurriyat. Similarly, the delegation was told of the need to review AFSPA and reduce the footprint of the military and paramilitary forces in civilian areas.

Government can take a number of unilateral steps to address the concerns and aspirations of the people of J&K. These include, in the first place, confidence building measures such as the use of non-lethal methods to contain mass protests, an end to arbitrary arrests youth, compensation to the victims of recent incidents of violence, a review of the Armed Force Special Powers Act and so forth.

This can be followed by an institutionalised dialogue to discuss the “core political issues”—the constitutional relationship between the centre and the state and internal devolution of powers—as well as matters pertaining to the economic and social interest of all communities. Recommendations to this effect are listed in the reports of five working groups set up by the UPA government and in comprehensive report of the Group of Interlocutors. (IPA Service)