The doctor's prescription

What happens when age-old crusading mentalities bump up against the saturation television and internet coverage characteristic of 21st century global media? Few could have guessed what followed when the plans of a lone pastor in Florida with a church of not more than 50 followers to burn copies of the Quran were broadcast worldwide. The threatened act of religious bigotry drew reactions from across the globe including from General David Petraeus, who commands US troops in Afghanistan, and who warned that the act, if carried out, endangered the lives of his men.
The Florida pastor's actions had repercussions not only in Afghanistan, but also in Kashmir.Here too, television footage had a role to play. Although the pastor didn't follow through with his threat Iranian television repeatedly showed clips of alleged desecration of the Quran somewhere in the US, and the Valley saw its worst day of violence in an angry summer with 17 people killed, scores injured, government buildings as well as a Christian-run school torched in Monday's chaos.
Given Kashmir's fraught situation, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has advanced a number of intelligent initiatives. It's important to stay engaged and keep up the channels of political communication, even if his ideas don't find an immediate response in the Valley. The all-party meet he convened on the state was a good step in this regard. He has combined an economy and jobs plan with a political package that includes dialogue with any group that abjures violence; moving towards better policing methods, non-lethal means of crowd control and a dilution of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act; and local body elections to give people more of a say in governance. Following Monday's violence he also proposed that any dialogue should address the governance deficit in the state, which carries an implicit criticism of the Omar Abdullah administration with which the Congress is in alliance.
The PM's proposals have had their fair share of detractors in the Valley, for whom they are too incremental, don't go far enough or address the 'root' of the Kashmir issue. The problem, however, is that they haven't come up with any ideas that are better. Let's pick up a few big ones among the counter-proposals.
First, go back to Kashmir's pre-1953 situation with respect to autonomy. This is what the National Conference wants. The problem with that argument is that Kashmir is already autonomous with its own constitution, a flag, a ban on non-Kashmiris settling or owning property in Kashmir. Of course, that autonomy has been tarnished in the past, with the Centre manipulating elections or otherwise interfering in the setting up of state governments. But New Delhi ought to have learnt its lesson from the two decades of insurgency in the Valley, and one can discuss ways of institutionalising a mechanism that would ensure such mistakes don't recur in the future. But returning to pre-1953 arrangements, when the state government had autocratic, quasi-monarchical powers particularly when the current state government is plausibly being blamed for Kashmir's predicament seems anachronistic and absurd. Devolution of power to the district, block or village level would give the average Kashmiri a role in governance and seems a better way to go.
Second, it's being mooted that New Delhi should recognise that Kashmir is an international dispute. But what in heaven's name does this mean? India claims the whole of the erstwhile princely state of Jammu & Kashmir, including PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan; so does Pakistan. Seems like an international dispute any way you look at it, moreover one that India and Pakistan had been discussing till internal turmoil in Pakistan and 26/11 took over. If there was no dispute, then the current LoC would have been called the border.
Third, full demilitarisation of Kashmir. But that's not possible so long as terror groups and camps remain active across the LoC. Since terrorist attacks have declined partial demilitarisation can, and should, be talked about so that security forces assume a more humanitarian posture in the state. However, full demilitarisation would have to await the dismantling of the camps and a comprehensive settlement of Kashmir as an international dispute.
Fourth, give independence to Kashmir. That, according to separatists (as well as Pakistan) is the 'root' issue. And in a radical sense, if one were to fully demilitarise Kashmir without matching moves next door, one might as well complete the process by pulling out of Kashmir entirely. The problem is that such independence is unlikely to last even a month before the Lashkar-e-Taiba's hordes roll in. That isn't a situation India will countenance, nor will it give Kashmiris much comfort. Afghanistan (or the Swat valley which strikingly resembles the Kashmir valley) under the Taliban ought to be a good reminder of what life can be like under the jihadi lash.
One unfortunate side effect of 24x7 television coverage of events is that it can provoke knee-jerk reactions and instant punditry. But, as Mehbooba Mufti has said, Kashmir is complicated. Anyone who claims to have a magic key that can resolve Kashmir is, in all likelihood, dealing in quack potions.