Of Monologues and dialogues on Kashmir

THERE is news that “Hectic deliberations are on in New Delhi to put in a serious effort to rope in Kashmiri separatist leaders including Syed Ali Shah Geelani for talks. More to the news is that New Delhi may offer unconditional dialogue this time. A welcome step as it may prove to be if at all New Delhi is seriously going to have a dialogue on a long vexed issue that is a big hindrance in the way forward to peace in the South-Asia region. One must, however, keep in mind all that makes a dialogue a success.

In a Dialogue, there are two parties that talk to each other. There is a listener and a speaker and the two change roles by allowing each other time and space for the expression of ones feelings and thoughts on a particular issue. For a dialogue to be successful, the two parties should not be ideally caught in a relationship of power. The two mustrespect each other and should let each other feel powerless and dependent, that means the two should be round the table for the solution of a problem and  adding complexities to it. Listening to each other is very important, otherwise it could be only a monologue where one party dominates
the whole scene. 

So far as the history of Kashmir issue is concerned, there have been only monologues only as New Delhi would never allow Kashmiri leaders time and space to put forth their point of view before New Delhi and New Delhi would actually not hear them. New Delhi has always been selective as far as their way of dialoguing is concerned.In the last twenty
years, they had meetings
and round table conferences
with some leaders in
Kashmir but conditions
would always apply. When
Dialogues are made conditional,
nothing can be
expected. One has to relax
and one has to accept the
reality. The disputed nature
of Kashmir between India,
Pakistan and Kashmiris is a
reality and all of them must
accept it before initiating a
fresh dialogue.

Dialogues
that are exclusive may not
be successful. Talking to NC,
PDP and Congress may be a
fruitless exercise as all these
parties are essentially pro-
India. It is actually the
Hurriyat leadership (All of
them irrespective of their
ideology) that New Delhi
has to talk to seriously and
sincerely for making dialogue
a success as groups of
Hurriyat actually represent
the voices of dissent and
resistance in Kashmir. In
fact, for the dialogue to be
more inclusive and representational
regarding the
voices of dissent and resistance
in Kashmir,

India has
to talk to the leadership of
Mutahida Jihad Council
Supremo Syed Salahudin as
a dialogue excluding the militant
leadership may ultimately
prove a futile exercise
if they are not listened
to and heard by the dialoguing
parties on Kashmir.
So, if the news indeed is
true that an offer for unconditional
dialogue is coming,
it is a welcome change but
one reserves the right to
doubt as history of so called
dialogues on Kashmir suggests
otherwise. Kashmiris
have never been heard by
New Delhi and the writing
on the wall in Kashmir has
never been read by them
also. What rather they
would always do is to hurt,
humiliate and enhance their
measures of subjugating
Kashmiri people. This type
of mind set in New Delhi has
successfully pushed
Kashmiris to the wall with a
long history of hurt and
humiliation and that is why
every time New Delhi offers
dialogue to Kashmiris, they
laugh it out taking it as yet
another joke manufactured
in New Delhi. Kashmiris
really want dialogue that
solves the problem and not
monologues where we are
not allowed to speak and
New Delhi leaves the table
after yet another colonial
way of lecture to the
colonised.

Responsibilty of
Resistance leadership
A divided house of discordant
house that Hurriat
leaders have made of the
great Kashmiri resistance
struggle in the last two
decades, the time has come
when they must look back
and do a little bit of selfintrospection
as to how they
actually can do for the lasting
solution of Kashmir.
They really need to see what
people in Kashmir want
them to do. It is frustrating
for a common man to see the
Hurriyat leaders do politicking
within but not aptly
responding to the situations
that we are caught in. The
divided-house image of the
Hurriyat has done a lot of
damage to Kashmiri resistance
struggle as India has
successfully exploited the
same in their efforts to
weaken the freedom struggle
in Kashmir. Not only
this, they have floated
stereotypes of discord, confusion,
fiefdom politics within the House thereby projecting the struggle in a bad light.

When our Hurriyatwallas are not ready to listen to each other, how do they expect that in dialogue if at all it be they will be listened to by India. Better go together as one voice than in dozens with different versions of the problem. Unity is strength and in unity alone one can expect results. And it is through unity only that they can carry forward a dialogue  Otherwise New Delhi may send them packing back with yet another monologue in their ears. (The author hails from Hajin Sonawari and can be contacted at ameenparray@gmail.com)