 We are very grateful to Shah Fezal for joining us in these very, very difficult times. We have changed the structure today. This is the Center for Policy Analysis annual lecture. We had Prabhat Patnaik before. We have called Parvez Hoodboy from Pakistan before. And we've had excellent response to all the lectures. And this time, we had decided on Shah Fezal, a new voice, a young voice from Kashmir. But because we are today in tight circumstances, we have decided to change the structure. And from an annual lecture, make it an annual panel discussion, where, of course, he will be participating. And so will be the others whose names you can see them. But before I invite our chair to take over Neera Chandru, we will please stand for two minutes in silence for the violence yesterday. The Center for Policy Analysis, which has been working for several years in Kashmir, along with the women there and women organizations here, with the youth there and young people and students unions from universities in different parts of the country, but mostly Delhi, political leaders from both Kashmir and Delhi, national political leaders. We've had many meetings. We've had many interactions with the one message that there should be nonviolent and there should be peace. And with peace, there should be dialogue. We've been stressing on dialogue continuously. Being of the firm view that violence begets violence and is a deterrent to dialogue. And there can be no solution to any issue without talks. So with this, we gather here. Too many people have died. Our soldiers have died. Militants have been killed, of course. But civilians have been harassed and killed. And this is a big, big price for us to pay as a country and a democratic country. So without further ado, I would ask Meera Chandu, who's our chair, a scholar from Delhi University, a strong voice in Delhi, taken excellent positions on Kashmir, one of the same voices for democracy and peace, to chair the discussion and call upon the others to come. Thank you. We meet with a sense of deep grief at so many losses of so many lives senselessly. When history was going to judge us, they will wonder why all these young men and women had to die for what. I think this is a question that we have to confront. We meet in a situation of great crisis, but crisis can also lead to the raising of new sorts of questions. And I'm going to start by suggesting that we raise two kinds of questions. And then the discussion can follow. No, there's a lot of work on democracy in India. And we very rightly pride ourselves on the fact that India, among all the countries of the global south, has maintained electoral democracy, parliamentary democracy, since we became independent, since the Constitution was adopted in 1950. And yet we cannot deny that in a democracy, we see a tremendous amount of violence from roadrages and domestic abuse to discrimination against so-called orcas, minorities, to the kind of political violence that we have seen in the periphery of India. The theorists of democracy very seldom take violence into account or what we call conflict zones into account. And this is normally left for international relations people in your Pakistan experts, insurgency studies and conflict studies. But we've had to come to terms with the fact that actually democracy can live very comfortably with violence. It is not a very happy recognition. But we have to recognize it because all human societies are embedded in violence of some kind or the other. The political trick is to keep violence at bay, to banish it to the boundaries of the political system. And this calls for a great deal of political innovation, a great deal of political imagination, and some degree of empathy. Our discourses must be conducted with a sense of empathy towards the victims of violence, whatever be their religion, whatever be the political side they are on. Because history does not forgive societies that allow young people to die when it could have been prevented. And that is why I'm very happy that SEMA and the CPA have taken up this initiative, because they have really been a sane moderate voice where Kashmir is concerned. If we see democracy as a frame from which we look at Kashmir and the Northeast, not the Maoists that are different case, then the question also shifts. And the question shifts to the kind of political community we have created in India. What is the obligation of us, citizens of India, towards our fellow citizens who live in these conflict zones? Should we not be doing something to help out raising moderate voices the way CPA has been raising and sustaining over the past few years, holding meetings, entering into all kinds of conversations to say, look, violence is not a solution. It may even exacerbate problems. And if we look at our duty, we owe to our fellow citizens, then there is need for empathy. There is no need to divide people, Indians who are members of a democratic political community on the lines of who is more national. The nation belongs to all of us. We all relate to the nation in different ways. And we should respect the different ways in which we approach the nation and the which we own the nation. It is with those two small comments that maybe it's time for us to shift the dialogue on Kashmir, the conversation on Kashmir, from conflict to the issue of democracy. And if we frame the issue in terms of democracy, then what kind of questions are thrown up? We will proceed on our panel discussion for about 40, 45 minutes. So let me call upon Shah Fezal to make the first contribution to this debate and then the rest of the panelists can join in. After this, we will throw the issue open to the floor for discussion. Thank you, Professor Neeraj Chandoke for this opportunity to speak here today. Thank you, Seema, for organizing this event. Today is a day, honestly speaking, when it's very hard to speak. You would want to actually sit in silence and maybe listen to those voices within. The heart doesn't really want to speak anything and say something about a situation that has suddenly risen in the country. But then there are certain things which need to be told and certain rituals to be fulfilled. Firstly, I would wish to share my deepest condolences to the families who lost their loved ones yesterday in Kashmir. A lot of people tell me that what has happened to Kashmir? Kashmir has now more or less become like a high-altitude graveyard where you see deaths and destruction happening almost every day. It's about 7 million people waiting for their turns to die. You have killings of one sort, killings of one nature one day. And another day, you have killings of another nature. It becomes hard for us to at times decide what to condemn and what not to condemn. The moral dilemmas that a normal Kashmiri goes through when it comes to what kind of violence to at times condone and what type of violence to at times condemn should all violence be condemned? What kind of violence is defensive violence? These are certain questions which only a normal Kashmiri on an average Kashmiri can understand. And somebody who believes in nonviolence and believes that human lives matter and all lives matter, it really hurts to see such death and destruction happening in Kashmir. When Sema initially talked to me about this event, we thought of name get futures for Kashmir. What kind of futures are we looking at? There's this famous post-modernist, post-clonelist Ziauddin Sardar. And he talks about three kinds of futures that when we talk about future of a place, we are basically talking about a series of tomorrows. One future is extended present. If there was somebody who was looking at Kashmir in year 2000 and he was looking at the death and destruction that was happening, and then he would think that maybe if there's kind of a policy in transigence that we have seen, then he could safely possibly predict that 20 years down the line, the kind of future that we are going to have, that's going to be a tad close to the present that we have. And today, when you look at the death and destruction happening in Kashmir, if we somehow had to have to make a prediction about next 20 years, one could safely argue that if the policy in transigence and the reluctance of the states to take care of the violence and the situation continues, then 20 years down the line, we could be dealing with an extended present where violence is on the peak, the tensions are escalating, there is no political process happening, the polarities which have been there, those polarities are widening, and the space for democratic and dissent that's shrinking. Another is a familiar future. A familiar future would be that a future maybe beyond 15 to 20 years, which we can possibly think of, but we cannot talk about with certainty because we do not understand those events which may be actually happening 10 to 15 years down the line. And then third would be an unknown future, a future which is very hard for us to imagine. So when you look at this kind of formulation, what kind of futures are we looking at today when it comes to Kashmir? Year 2018 was one of the deadliest years. In 2001, we saw the highest number of casualties in Kashmir. At a decade down in 2018, the number of casualties on the both sides of the ideological divide that went and skyrocketed. We have yesterday seen one of the deadliest attacks in Kashmir in the last 30 years. We have seen absolutely no chances for any sorts of reconciliation happening whereby Kashmiri pundits would come back home. We have seen a new kind of educated militancy emerging in Kashmir, where PhD scholars are taking to arms. We have seen an absolute sense of estrangement of a young generation of Kashmiris from the democratic process. In 2018, when Panchayat and local body elections were held, we saw a near total by-court of the electoral process. So we are seeing a decline at multiple levels. And if this decline continues, the way it is, we are going to be dealing with an extended present, a crisis of a similar nature, or maybe a crisis far bigger in magnitude 10 years down the line. One more thing. When it comes to the external dimension of the conflict, we are also seeing the churning that is happening in Afghanistan this time. What kind of psychological impact it has on the groups which are engaged in violent conflict that needs to be understood. We also need to understand the dynamics in the South Asia and view up the Chinese interest in the region. We need to understand how is the future going to be like if this happens, if things continue to happen, the way things are happening. In Kashmir, three or four things are very important, which will be happening in the next 20 years, where the nuance needs to be picked up and we need to understand the challenge that is going to emerge. When it comes to the political processes, we have had hundreds of rounds of dialogue in the last 70 years. But you know what is going to happen in the next 10 to 15 years is that the kind of leadership which is in Kashmir this time, the leadership which has been ready to engage, the leadership which has a history of engagement with the Indian state, that leadership is turning old. That leadership is on the way out. You are going to have a new set of leaders in Kashmir who have absolutely no idea of normalcy, who have been brought up during the years of war. What kind of engagement are we going to expect with that leadership? That is going to be a challenge in itself, number one. Number second, we are seeing escalation in violence. Now what happens when a youngster gets killed and educated youngster gets killed in a Kashmiri village? That entire village is lost. There is absolutely no way you can communicate with that village through a democratic process. That village is lost. Menacellar dies and that coffin goes to some other places in the rest of the country. That village is lost. We are losing villages by villages and districts by districts every day. The more killings happen, the more it will be impossible for us to bring these villages together and the polarization of the narratives across the country is going to happen. That's going to be a second extreme danger when it comes to the impact of violence on the societies in the near future. Third important thing. What we have seen in the last four to five years is that we have seen extinguishing of certain spaces of solidarity in the Indian civil society when it comes to dealing with Kashmir. You may all recall, and it kind of feels like nostalgia today, that four to five years down the line, four to five years back, we used to have conversations about Kashmir on Indian TV. Those conversations, conversations used to be very decent. Those conversations used to be full of sympathy and empathy for people of Kashmir. Those conversations used to acknowledge the political crisis in Kashmir. What has happened to those conversations? Somewhere in the din of last four to five years, ma'am, we have lost those conversations. And the more those spaces get extinguished in the Indian liberal class, the more difficult it is going to be tomorrow to continue to have a dialogue and a meaningful dialogue with the people of Kashmir. Fourth important thing that has happened and that is a very dangerous thing to happen is that Kashmir has always been a poll-related issue. It has been an electoral issue. But in recent times, the toxic narrative in the country has gone to such a level where killings in Kashmir fuel a certain sort of hatred in the rest of the country. It has become a very easy way of winning elections. And that has led to a dehumanization at both levels, both within Kashmir and outside. Killings have become just a kind of statistic. They have become some sort of a fodder, cannon fodder for the poll machine to move on. I think these are four important dangers, which we need to be awake to when we think about the crisis in Kashmir today. What's the way forward, finally? I think some people tell me that why are we talking about the old issues and the old hackneyed arguments today, the dialogue and the conversations and communication and talks and all that. I said, what are the other alternatives? We have tried surgical strikes. Have they worked? They haven't. Can we afford a new war with our nuclear neighbor? Depends on the Indian state, if it can. My belief is that we can't. Can we afford one more escalation in the South Asia? I think we cannot. Can we afford military solutions? We have seen the military solutions. We have seen what is happening in Kashmir today. You have an entire population of youngsters which is ready to pick up guns if you give them guns. Military solution is not a solution for Kashmir. I have been reiterating it time and again. And when it comes to my resignation also, I think that was also a pointer that there's a crisis in Kashmir. I have been trying to bring to the spotlight this crisis which we saw yesterday. And this is something which we should be awakened to that yesterday we crossed the Rubicon. Yesterday was a watershed movement in the conflict of Kashmir, something which has never happened before. And if this happens again, believe me, believe me, friends, you will have an Afghanistan in the north of India, which is already there, but it will be within India. You will have a Syria. It's a Vietnam in the making and we cannot absolutely afford it. Now what are some of the very simple things which can be done possibly when it comes to de-escalating and overcoming the cycle of violence would be one, as Ma'am said, it's about enlarging the democratic space. And when you talk to young Kashmiri today when you talk to him about democracy, he reminds you about 1953. He tells you what was 1953. You have an elected prime minister of the state and he was sent to jail and put behind the bars for 22 years. What happened in 1987? When I talk to young Kashmiris today, I tell them that we need to engage democratically. They tell me what about 1987? What was that? Are you going to guarantee us that the electoral processes will not be rigged, as you may see in the democratic engagement? These are very tough questions. If we are really ready to enlarge the democratic space in Kashmir and experiment with true democracy, as Ma'am said, I think that's going to be one of the most phenomenal remedies to the current stage of crisis. You can blame people for not engaging democratically when you first give them the democratic option. Today, violence begets violence and the state reacts with violence and the people react with more violence. When I ask people to abandon their guns, they tell me, come on, let's state, abandon its gun first. Let's state, put forward its democratic feed first, then we are going to kind of step back and abjure violence. So democratic spaces will be very important. Second, when it comes to dealing with Kashmir, I think India needs to, Indian democracy needs to be very large-hearted. Kashmir is not an ordinary place. It's not an ordinary state. We are already in a very special and a unique arrangement with the Union of India. When it comes to interpreting ideas of dissent, ideas of defection, ideas of sedition, ideas of freedom of speech, I think we'll have to be more large-hearted when it comes to dealing with them. Today, what happens is that when a Kashmiri comes out of Kashmir, you know what he turns into, the first source of alienation is when he comes to Delhi, comes to Bangalore. He becomes first-time conscious that this place is not his place. When he comes to look for an apartment here in Delhi, he's made to believe that this is not the place that belongs to you. He goes back, he finds all doors closed, he finds push to the wall. What happens when you create an environment of constriction and environment of suffocation? It reflects itself, it manifests itself in the escalation of violence. It may sound to be a very stupid way of dealing with it because we are very used to kind of passing on the blame to our neighboring countries, and we say that it's the neighboring country which does it, but finally we have to also look at the supply and the demand side of violence. When there is no supply and demand there in the state, you will not have other people coming in and interfering with your sovereign kind of space. So democratic space enlarging will be very important. The second is I wish we could revive that intellectual solidarity which is in the rest of the country. The Indian intellectual class needs to speak more often when it comes to the crisis in Kashmir. I know there has been an absolute environment of siege when it comes to the rest of the country in the last four to five years. I wish the intellectual class rises up and actually acknowledges those humanitarian realities when it comes to Kashmir. Kashmir is today bleeding on both sides. Nobody is happy when a soldier dies, when a young man dies there, it's the humanity which suffers. I think the civil society and intellectual class needs to revive those old bonds of friendship with Kashmir. That's really going to help us. Third thing, when it comes to Indian media, I'm really sorry, I've been talking about it time and again. Indian media is not going to help anybody here. I mean, there is nothing like Indian media. A lot of people tell me there's nothing like national media. You have certain channels which are dishing out that poisonous narrative and which is like really putting fire onto the flame and putting fuel onto the flame. I wish the media channels realized that what kind of disservice they are doing to this democracy. I really would not be making any bones in accepting that Indian media and the national media is by and large responsible for these deaths that are happening in Kashmir today. A lot of blood is definitely on those hands which are on those blue and red and green and all those newsrooms. I think the rest of the questions we can possibly be taken during the question and answer session. I was not actually in a proper state of mind today to be talking to you, to be very honest. I had requested SEMA that maybe we could kind of postpone this conversation to some other time. But then these conversations are really important. I believe that maybe even in these times of crisis, even in these times of despair, it's good that we keep on talking to each other and keep on sharing those solidarities and keep on kind of giving support to each other. I thank you very much for listening to me. You know, I'm so heartened by seeing so many young people here. It really shows that there's a deep desire to understand the roots of the problem. And I would suggest just one very simple thing. Before you ask questions about the conflict, we should do well to figure out why do people pick up the gun in a democracy when they have the right to elect and dismiss representatives. Why is it, maybe violence is politics of the last resort. We'll have to figure this out. But the asking of questions is what makes a society alive. This is what makes for solidarity. Solidarity is a concept that has been not used in political debate of the present or even of the recent past, but my generation was brought up with notions of solidarity. That if somebody is killed, it hurts you because they are a fellow citizen. He or she is a fellow citizen. And your short introduction to, and what you feel that you obviously are present, feels very deeply about the issue, reminded me of a poem which again we brought up with. The death of each man diminishes me for I am involved in mankind. So ask not for whom the bill tolls. It tolls for you and me. I think today is a day when we might think it's hard for us to speak. But I think it's also necessary that we speak today because if we don't speak up today, then we're also letting the narrative be set by others. I think we can talk about framing it as democracy. Dira did it and Shah Fazal has really given us an account of what is happening in Kashmir. What is it that the Kashmiri today lives through and what are the political spaces that exist over there? I would like to focus on that how Kashmir has become a part of the larger narrative of framing Indian nationalism in a certain way. And I'll start with this, that we are not talking of nation as a nation of people, but we are talking of the land. We are talking of Kashmir, not about Kashmiris. And I think that's the fundamental difference of this kind of nation that is being talked about. And remember when the nuclear bombs were exploded at that time and even later, they have been social media messages going around which says even if the three fourth of the Indian people get killed in a nuclear war, it's okay because you'll be victorious and it does not matter if we lay down our lives for this land, the radioactive land. Now, this is again that nationalism is being framed in terms of blood and land, not in terms of the people. And I think this is the fundamental issue. Is the nationalism for the people or is it for an idea of a so-called land which belongs to a certain set of people which excludes a certain set of people and exclusionary nationalism built on what used to be called blood and race nationalism. And I think that's the challenge which makes Kashmir the poem of this narrative that Kashmir what is happening today is not because there is any desire or belief that this will solve the problem of Kashmir. It is to rouse a certain kind of exclusionary nationalism which can then be used to knit a certain narrative together which is what we are seeing today. And I think it's necessary for us to confront that as well. Thank you. Thank you, Prubey, Shafi et al, would you, okay. Guys, we'll keep the applause for later. Shafi et al, would you like to respond to Prubey? I totally agree that the kind of exclusionary nationalism which has been in vogue in the country for the last four to five years. If you look at the graph of violence, it may sound very coincidental, but the fact is that the escalation in the violence has happened in the last five years, fundamentally. And you could blame it on coming together up to political ideologies of opposed polarities. You could also blame it on the kind of muscular and the militarized narrative which became popular in the rest of the country. And I have absolutely no doubts that whatever has happened in the last five years in Kashmir, definitely those people have to share the blame who have been trying to promote a certain brand of nationalism in the country. And that echo definitely is in Srinagar this time, what has been happening in the rest of the country. The Lynch mob nationalism, the TV room nationalism, the ink and the scholar nationalism, the nationalism of denying the political space and the democratic space to intellectual class, the de-intellectualization of the public discourse in India, the decline of the intelligentsia and the kind of narrative which we have seen around science here. All those factors have together worked in putting fire to Kashmir, ma'am. I totally agree with the professor, yeah. Quick intervention, because I actually want to listen to Faisal Ma. But I just want to say a little bit about the media because he's, that was one of his last points initially. And you know, you can see that play out when we over here get into this level of nationalism as the media of macho nationalism, where we wage war and we distort news. I think Kashmir has faced the brunt of it. We've all faced it. The entire country probably has faced it, but Kashmir has faced the brunt. And you can see the play when the stone pelting started in Kashmir. Immediately the Indian media came out with the official thing that stone pelters, it's all Pakistanis. We went into Kashmir and you had initial stages, everybody coming out and saying that this was just a cry of protest. And I remember a big meeting where all the young people came out and we had, you know, politicians and we had film personalities like Saeed Mirza and others. And these guys kept coming and said, I'm a stone pelter, I'm a stone pelter, I'm a stone pelter, meaning what they were trying to say is that we are indigenous people, don't always marry us to Pakistan. So there was that anger. Then when the floods came, the way the youth of Kashmir worked day and night at risk to their lives. And in places along with the army, which the army also acknowledged, that yes, it is because of the young people that we were able to rescue people in the villages who were trapped, who were facing certain death. And what did we report here? Day and night, only the army rescuing. The stories of heroic valor was not even touched upon, created tensions, people were upset, they felt that they're not being recognized, they feel that again, you're pushing them with, you know, they're back to the wall. So this has been a constant refrain and I was discussing a little earlier that five years ago, when we went in there and thought the situation was terrible, I mean, it's a far cry. It seems normal compared to what we are facing today with the media, I'm talking about the media, about the kind of channels we have come, the warm, mongering propaganda, the kind of people who call themselves journalists and are not journalists, they're not news channels, they are propaganda channels. And we have been trying to work with the journalist bodies to finally, at least from within us define what is news, what is accountability, what is transparency, what is responsibility. And then say that that is a news channel or not a news channel, any fool opens up a channel regardless of where he comes from, just because he has the money and says it's news. This is not news, journalism is the fourth pillar of democracy, you destroy journalism, you destroy the other institutions of democracy and that's what we are seeing. When it comes to understanding Indian democracy in Kashmir, the point is how, what are those institutions, what are those symbols of democracy which a Kashmiri youngster usually relates to. So fundamentally we, as we talked about earlier also that when it comes to first symbol would be or the first representation would be the electoral democracy. So Kashmiris have been extremely suspect of the brand of electoral democracy and the representative democracy that has been in work in the state for last 70 years. So they do not really, it doesn't really give much confidence to a Kashmiri. Then would come to the other institutions when it comes to certain federal institutions. Let's talk with media. Media would be something where media is a representative of democracy, it's something which is a bulwark of democracy. But when Indian media or the national media or the TV rooms, when yesterday this unfortunate incident, unfortunate horrible incident happened in Kashmir, it was firstly the TV rooms which started the cries for revenge. A revenge against Kashmiris, revenge against anybody who has a certain kind of identity. So then revenge turned into war mongering as Seema said it rightly. And this war mongering has been happening for many years now. We have been looking at surgical strikes and if you look at the narrative in Kashmir and ask people that what about surgical strikes? You will understand a totally different story around surgical strikes, does it matter or not? We saw demonetization and how did Indian media kind of portray demonetization was that it was something which crippled the stone pelters and closed their sources of income and improved the law and order situation in the ground. I have been somebody who has been dealing with law and order in Kashmir for the last 10 years. Sir has been here and we understand the nuances of law and order. It doesn't really work that way. So what has been what the media channels have been essentially doing is that they have been ensuring that there is absolutely no space for reconciliation with the Indian state and the Indian democratic institutions. If the kind of India that Kashmiris get to see on their TV screens, I mean that India doesn't really inspire confidence in anybody. In my view is the problem unsolved between India and Pakistan rights is independence. But from 1947 whatever 48 they sent their people in 47 occupied till 1975. There was compare this kind of thing was not there. Then luckily Sheikh Abdullah was again heading the state. 75 to 82 it lasted seven years. When sheikhs are passed away there were elections in 83. Unfortunately at the opposite let me tell you my reading of Kashmiris that the mess is entirely due to successive governments and daily. Blaming Srinagar is of no use. And when I say successive governments it began very early. We tried to dilute the terms of accession of Kashmir to India. In 83 a peculiar thing happened. There was an election assembly election of Kashmir where national confidence was the Kashmiri dominating party and the Congress party from Delhi. They couldn't arrive in arrangement. They fought against each other. And the national confidence won. Farooq Abdullah became the chief minister. Unfortunately we have a thin skin. New Delhi did not like it. They thought Kashmiris have shown their thumb to Delhi. That's not the way to see is a federal system. They've elected their own government. By midnight coup, defections were engineered and the Kashmir government was brought down. Another government was placed. The people of Kashmir, whatever they were before that on that day they were totally alienated. The message they got was that any election process which has been done properly with property is not in doubt. If that is not respected then you are treating Kashmir as a colony not as a part of the Indian Union. All the problems that began after that as Shah Faisal rightly pointed out the 87 elections were notorious. Kashmiri felt even another nail in the coffin. And after 87, last 32 years we are seeing what's happening in Kashmir. Everybody's got a share to blame. The major part of blame is with the union government in Delhi or whichever party. I am not, last five years what's happening doesn't even need mention. I don't even talk self-evident. But even the dilution of Article 370 has successfully been done by all the governments. Right from Jawaharlal Nehru's time in Dara Gandhi's time every government likes to extend its footprint in Kashmir. Whether the election commission, Supreme Court, slowly the essence of that accession has been demolished. What is the way forward? In my humble view you must first restore that confidence in that. You must tell them we will abide by the terms of accession. Whatever autonomy, this word autonomy, self, there are terms of accession. We have agreed. This you will do, this we will do. We should stick to that from our point of view. Nobody can go out of Kashmir. They're part of the Indian Union. Putting so much army, so much police it only adds to the alienation. And today's youth, think which people don't notice. I'm talking 30 years. Most of the youth today is born after that. They don't know the past history. They don't know the glorious days of Sheikh Abdullah and the Union government. We, it is an alien. We've alienated the population completely and successfully. Now how do you get back? I am very happy that Shah Faisal resigned from his IAS and joined trying to do his bit to bring sanity in the valley. That's, that I would say the beginning is to start restoring the process, not saying that article 372 should be abolished and all that, all that doesn't even wash. Thank you. I want your response, Shah, to something. You know, something I have been feeling. You know, the dominant frame in which the Kashmir issue is posed, is that it is a law and order problem or a problem of insurgency. Suppose we were or the policy makers rather, but policy makers have to respond to civil society mobilization because government really do not follow the path of justice unless we in civil society mount pressure on them to do so. Suppose we were to see Kashmir as a political problem can, can be resolved politically through democratic means. What would be your response? I think fundamentally when we try to frame Kashmir in the nature of a law and order situation or maybe a proxy war or maybe an insurgency issue, what happens is that we are actually extricating the history of the conflict from the conflict and what we are trying to do is that we are asking a generation of Kashmiris to kind of forget the history, the context, the geography, the culture, the memory which is, which has brought us right to the situation. As Mr. Muraka very rightly said that it's about those historical milestones like 1975, like 83, like 87, like 96, which are very important and we cannot talk about the conflict by ignoring while ignoring those important milestones. When it comes to how can we possibly connect history with this? So we have 100,000 killings have happened in the last 70 years. We have custodial disappearances of unknown number. We have an entire civilization, Kashmiri pundits who had to abandon their homes and who were living in exile. Their new generation doesn't understand the roots that they come from. We have a new phase of militancy happening in Kashmir. And then we tell people, let's forget all this whatever has happened in the last 70 years, let's move on, take a package from India of 70,000 crores and forget about it and do some development and tourism and forget whatever has happened in the past and live happily thereafter. We are ignoring that it was none less than the prime minister of this country who has given a promise to the people of Jammu and Kashmir that those conditions on which accession was made, those conditions will be respected. I think those conditions need to be respected. Today, when people tell us that we are going to abolish Article 35A, people tell us we are going to abolish Article 370, what are they trying to convey? What kind of relationship do they envisage between the Union of India and the Jammu and Kashmir State in absence of these important articles? I think the kind of ignorance which we are seeing in the rest of the country when it comes to the constitutional or the federal relationship between the Union of India and the Jammu and Kashmir State, I think that needs to be understood. And these provocations, Article 335A, Article 370A, when the body is already injured, you have a hurt, the soul is injured and then you are adding on insults and provocations to those people. I think it's one of the most, you know, unfortunate things which has been happening that we are trying to provoke Kashmiris into violence by raising the bogies which absolutely are not even relevant today. Thank you. Praveen, would you like to say, respond to what Sharpey has said? I think that if we continue to frame Kashmir as a law and order problem, we have lost the politics of Kashmir because obviously then the trajectory is more violence, more military, more police. And if you look at the size of the population and the size of armed forces we've put in over there, security forces we've put in over there, this is going nowhere, clearly. So this muscular nationalism by which we'll crush all dissent and make it to law and order, you know, restore law and order is really the restoration of shall we say the graveyard. You get peace but the peace of the graveyard and that's not going to happen either. So I think this is the key problem that we face but the problem cannot be solved by the people of Kashmir. Unfortunately the problem is the people of India. Unless we win this battle here, we cannot solve the problem that we are facing in Kashmir today. Kashmiris are being held hostage of a toxic to a toxic nationalism and that's the problem we both have to fight jointly. Seema, if you'd like to come in and then I'll let Sharpeh as I'll have the last words before we open the presentations. Yeah, just taking on from the last points. I think that we just carrots army soldier, I mean even taking it from that argument where he's written and given a deadline that what does a soldier do when the governments run out of options. So if a government stretches back and says that all of the option, the entire option that we have is to mess around with the status of a state with the rest of India and by threatening to abolish certain statutes which determine that relationship and we are only going to treat it like a law and order problem and there is nothing else but a law and order problem, I mean if you do that with any state, forget Kashmir and a sensitive border state which has so many things being played around with. If you do that with any state today in this country, you have a problem, you did it in West Bengal, saw it, you had Mamta out on the roads. That's not a border state, that's not Kashmir, that's not dominated by the Muslims, it's not interfered with by Pakistan but federalism, autonomy, democracy all go hand in hand. You can't mess around with it. In states like Kashmir and the Northeast which we have seen ourselves in the 80s, the terrible, terrible violence when elections were declared there against the will of the people in Assam moving into Nellie. We've seen the terrible violence, we've seen the insurgency, we've seen how it happens. So if you can't have a border policy and you cannot handle your border states, you will not be able to handle the rest of India and turn India into a developed vibrant democracy that we all come and make these rara promises with but which have no meaning, thanks. I would conclude by saying that it'll be extremely dangerous to kind of expect that we can replicate a Punjab or a Chhattisgarh or a Manipur experience in Kashmir. Kashmir is not Chhattisgarh, it's not Manipur, it's not Punjab. It's a region where three nuclear powers are this time engaged in international conflict and it needs to be very sensitively dealt with. Number one. Number second, what can possibly be done about the situation immediately there is that I think we need to revive our humanity first. What has happened is that the Kashmir conflict has now become a war between the, or it is made to be a war or a confrontation between the soldier and the stone pelter or a cop and the stone pelter or a cop and the militant. Fundamentally, it's the security forces which are standing in, which are actually picking up the cross of the politician. It's fundamentally a problem of depoliticization of a space. It's about the politician withdrawing from a certain territory which belongs to him which is then filled by the soldier and the cop and the counter-insurgent. I wish the politicians of this country take the responsibility and actually fill in the space that belongs to them and do not push soldiers and the cops and the police people to the borders and to those battle zones which do not belong to them. I wish the politician of this country actually now rises up and stops bloodshed and the people of this country hold these politicians accountable. All right, we are opening up one minute. Can we have a little patience please? I know everyone's charged and wants to ask questions. May I just suggest that we do not make alternative formulations? And if you could frame your questions within the kind of norms that have been suggested, talk about federalism, talk about democracy, talk about justice and talk about solidarity with our fellow citizens. May I first, I'm going to recognize people but please with civility respond. I know it's a very emotionally charged issue but this is not what this meeting is about. We're going to have a reflective rational debate and I'm a teacher of longstanding. I know how to maintain discipline, okay? May I first call upon Vajahat Habibullah to make an observation and then we'll move on. And can we have gender balance please? I'd like to see women also read. I will talk, come to you. Please Vajahat sir. Mike, yes, please. But we have a mike, right? Well, I really would be interested in hearing what everyone else has to say but I suppose I stand here before you as a person who can be proud of the fact that after I entered the service until 1968, I have served, I've had the opportunity to serve in Jammu and Kashmir but also deeply ashamed of the fact that my service in Jammu and Kashmir has been a complete failure. Proud why? Here you have this young man. You wouldn't find educated young people like that when I actually joined the state. Now you have plenty of young people, bright young people like this who are able to speak to you in the way Shah Fezal has. Ashamed because a mission for me in Kashmir was that I might win over the youth to the idea of India. And I committed myself and dedicated myself fully while working there and while working in the prime minister's office. I was in the prime minister's office under Mrs. Gandhi in 1987 too. To making them feel that they're Indians. The description you have heard shows you what has been the consequence. Certainly a cause of personal shame to me. But if I may just summarize from the discussion the issues that have emerged and you would all have heard of the question of Azadi, Azadi, Azadi being the theme of stone pelters and others. Unfortunately, I have to admit standing here before you and Dr. Chandok that Kashmir has never enjoyed democracy. Not in 1953, not even in 1950. When Sheikh Abdullah faced election himself as leader of the National Congress, you know that. After, I mean, for a long time people have talked about 1977 being the free and fair elections. I was deputy commissioner of Srinagar and conducted those elections. They were freer than the elections before them. But when I was president, officer of electoral booth in Anantnag in 1971 as we walked out with the ballot boxes to put in the treasury before the counting the next day. The polling officer who was with me, walking with me and he actually carrying the boxes, said, Chahar, Chahar Denki Chahandani, Pahat Sarka Alhera. Because those ballot boxes, what was contained in them were not the election results. The rigging of elections had been made into a fine out. From the very time of the initiation. Now, 1977, I would admit that the elections were not entirely rigged, but they were not what one might call fully free and fair either. 1983, the elections were much larger and of course, I was associated with the decisions and elections and things that took place for other, but 77 gave a glimmer that there could be. There were possibilities of democracy in Kashmir and that unfortunately, we know did not lead to what they felt would be a democracy and there have been, I would admit, since 2002, at least there have been free and fair elections there. But then how, what is the, what is the breadth of participation? Has everybody actually participated in those elections? So, basically, on the question of accession, the accession took place because the Kashmiri people were convinced on the persuasion of their leader, Sheikh Abdullah, that freedom could be had only in India. And he's described this several times. That freedom, you have not enjoyed. I have called my book, The Dying of the Light, because the light that has died there, this was a totally non-violent people, totally, so non-violent that when I actually arrived in the state, they couldn't slaughter a kitchen in their home. They had to engage a butcher to come and slaughter the chicken for them. And this is the state where young people are now associated with violence. What have we done? Thank you. You know, I'd like to accommodate as many questions as possible. Last 10 minutes, I want to give to Shah Feru. So please make your questions sharp and short-pointed. I'm going to ask, the mic will come to you, this young lady to mic. My question is, don't you think Kashmiri youth is becoming victim of emotional or moral ignorance? Thus being misled because of their lack of facts and isolation from basic knowledge. So don't you feel it is the inefficiency of our education system for not being able to educate the youth about the basic facts, about the ground situation, about the real story, about the past, about the history, history of accession, what we were talking about. I mean, we can talk about this institution of democracy only when the people at ground level are aware about its importance. We can be talking about it then only. I think you've made your point, very good point. Thank you, Mr. Rao. Yeah. At least one little task and attempt, even if it fails, can we negotiate with two what I would call criminal channels, Republic and News? I mean, and negotiate with them and ask them and negotiate with them and ask them to stop the damn war. Can we do it? Yeah. Yes. Manishankarayur, would you like to intervene? Mike, please. I'll call up. Everybody will have a chance. I just want to say it's a great privilege to meet a wonderful Indian called Sharpe. Thank you. Bravo. How do I go? Okay. Gender balance. Yes, please. And then everybody will, you will get a chance. Yes. I'm from Urdu, so my question will be in Urdu. I'd like to know if you can answer in Urdu. My question is that, first of all, congratulations to you for entering politics. So you meet with people. My question is, it's a little out of the box if I may say so myself. Is it possible that, five years later, ten years later, God willing, fifteen or twenty years later, we are a different community, Junubi Asia, a sort of federal South Asia, where the borders are covered in dust. It's impossible to change the date, the borders are impossible to change, but are we a different community, Junubi Asia, a sort of federal South Asia, that can be imagined? And the contact you have with your people, you are connected with your people, is this acceptable to the Kashmiri people? Yeah. Thank you. I don't want to burden this young man too much. So, shall we start from here? Yeah. Short and sharp, please. Hi, my name is Shahan Masjidullah, I'm from Kashmir. My question is to Shah Faisal. So, he knows Kashmir, I know Kashmir, everybody knows here, Kashmir, but my question- Put your mic up here. Yeah, my question to Shah Faisal is what will be your role in such a terrible situation? This is my simple question to Shah Faisal. What will be your role as far as political settlement is concerned? When I say political settlement, it is about dialogue and negotiation is about that. Thank you. Now I'll start from here. Yes? Yes? Could you introduce yourself? Yeah, I'm Ram. I'm coming from Hyderabad. I visited Kashmir and Ladakh and other places several times. I have a very external point of view. I'm not very well informed. What is your question? My question is I was following the Andhra Telangana division. Initially I was not supporting. I thought that is unfair. But I visited Kashmir, looking at people there. I thought that kind of emotional burden on people to live together is very unfair. Since then I started supporting division of Telangana, though I belong to Andhra. Please can you ask your question? The question is- We discussed Telangana on another day. No, I was just relating to the issue. Okay, sorry for the diversion. I was wondering why should Kashmir be part of India with so much of emotional burden and so much of violence? If they want to live independently, together with India, there are several countries. Why not we allow? I think Indians are unnecessarily putting burden on the communities. Thank you, in the middle, yes. Sorry, thank you. Yes. Well, how nice, give her a mic. Must be the youngest member of our audience. Hello, good evening. I have a question to Dr. Shah Faisal. I'm from Kashmir. I have been in Delhi from the last three months. The school I met here in Delhi in these three months, I'm only 11 years old. The school I met here in Delhi, I don't get that school in Kashmir. Because the situation there is that if we talk here, then we have to study. I want to take my future forward. I want to give my parents' names. So, the question about your education, tell me. The schools here, in these three months, I saw that the schools here are still open. When we talk about Kashmir, in Kashmir, the school is open twice a week. The rest of the three days are closed. The reason for this is that there are strikes. When we go out, even here in the left, there are more men standing. Here, there are soldiers standing. When we see them standing, we get scared. We got scared. How can we go to school? I saw that from 12, 1, 2 o'clock, people go back from the office. They don't have any fear. Thank you, child, for your question. I understand your anxiety. Very good. Very good question. No, later. You've already. Veena? One question. I'll be right back. Why should I meet everyone? Shaaf, this is for you, child. Now, I compliment you, darling. I'm running a school in Srinagar. And that school has been there. Our family has been there since 1896, four generations. And we are very, very happy there. Of course, things do happen. But people are still very, very nice to us. We have no absolutely no problems. But she's very right now. Shaaf, what I would suggest to you is that people are bitter, but the children like you, the boys like you, can only start this movement. Not the movement of only Azadi and things like that. I mean, just no government will do anything. I don't think anybody would, because you belong to that place and you understand their feelings. And you, because you're the person who can start this with other educated youth. And I'm sure everybody will listen to you. I'm sure everybody will. And I'm sure you can play the biggest role I feel. And of course, the intellectual intellect. Thank you, Veena. It's, I'd say, yes, this gentleman. Yeah. Badai. Yeah. Abhi, I'm going section by section. Yes. Hi. My question is to connect it to a larger point of rising populism throughout the world. So the people who are vying for blood and war in India are Indian citizens. Instead of lecturing them or just looking down upon them, how do we engage them? Because we are not only alienating Kashmiris, but one of the Pondulis, we are alienating the rest of Indians. So how do we reach out? Thank you. Would you like to take it up and go? I would take maybe yes, ma'am. Let him answer. I would answer. So one question was about, do Kashmiri youth have a sense of history? And what kind of education do we need to give to them? My belief is that Kashmiri youngsters are over-educated. They have a completely amazing sense of history and sense of education when it comes to their past, when it comes to their political rights. Somebody who is doing a PhD or has done a doctorate somewhere, has done an MVPS. I do not think somebody like me can go and educate him about his political rights. It's fundamentally about the consciousness of those political rights, which is becoming a problem in Kashmir today. And I think unless we restore those rights, that problem is going to be there. One was, you asked me a big question, what can we unite to South Asia? I think Kashmir can be a corridor for South Asia. We have the concept of silk route, on which Kashmir's Urlada and Jammu's location have already happened, like some roads are open to the silk route, which we could be connected to. Now there is a lot of talk about Cargill's Cargo route, which can connect Kashmir to Gilgit and other areas. Kashmir could actually become a favorite and a connecting point between various civilizations, various cultures. And the larger, South Asia's larger, our equation could be made. I wish the leaders of both countries realized that the silk route culture, which is our tradition, if we can revive it, then it could be a great initiative for South Asia's unification. When it comes to role in political settlement, what is my role? I believe that, which I have been constantly saying, is that we need to humanize the narrative around Kashmir and rest of the country. And my job is to go to the people of India. It's not the politicians of India or maybe the MLAs or the ministers of India who are going to find the grand solutions for Kashmir problem. My belief is that unless Indians are convinced, 1.2 billion Indians, unless they're convinced that we need a solution in Kashmir, we need to humanize that space. Solutions are not going to come in. And I want to go out and talk to as many people and I'm sure that this life is going to be sure, so not going to be enough for that, but I can at least make my effort. You asked a question. I think you got your answer with applause at the back. That small girl asked a very important question about militarized social spaces in Kashmir. This is a very serious concern for youngsters that the social space has been militarized and the youngsters do not have the freedom to move. For this young girl, aspiration of freedom or the idea of freedom possibly would be telling. She wants to have a life the way people in Delhi live. I wish we could somehow restore those spaces to people and demilitarization from civilian areas is that's why one of the very important steps towards restoration of confidence of the civilian population and that would really help us in bringing normalcy to people and making their lives a bit better. I'm Muzaffar Shah, Senior Vice President of Jammu-Khushmir of Amir National Conference. And at present, we're heading the 35A campaign that is going on in the Supreme Court. I've heard a lot of questions and the distinguishing panel that is here talked about Kashmir. Subject is way forward. So I would here like to ask all of you together today because we talked about yesterday's, the carnage that took place in the valley wherein we lost so many lives and every single Kashmiri is very, very heartbroken and sad about it. But today, while we are talking here, I would like to tell the panel also here and my friends, ladies, all my youngsters here, that we have had a very, very disturbing news coming out of Jammu while we are sitting here. More than 100 odd vehicles have been torched by now. And so many houses have been attacked and the governor's administration, it could have clamped curfew since yesterday evening as a precautionary measure. What I would suggest that we would be listening to all our distinguished, all the people on the podium, we'll be listening to so many questions here, so many answers. But I would suggest as a way forward, a simple suggestion if it would be agreed upon. How many of you present here or on the dais are ready tomorrow to walk from Jantar Mantar to the parliament and say, hey, stop this in Jammu, stop this in Kashmir? Are you ready? Then please do that. Let the CPA make this announcement and let us all go and walk for Jammu and Kashmir, walk for this country, walk for humanity. Please do that. Thank you very much. Okay. Now, despite my deep desire to accommodate every question, I'm afraid we won't be able to do it, we just have about 50. Can I make a suggestion? Please write your names on a small piece of paper and I'll ask each member of the panel to draw a lot. Sorry, but sometimes we have to make a decision. Give me the papers, I'll give you the names. In the meantime, Sukumar, would you like to say something? No? Give your name, we'll just draw. Yeah. Yes, Nidam, please. Just as our problem in India has been the partition of the country, do you recognize that Kashmir is partitioned? Does that play a role in the five points that you put before us with which I agree completely? Thank you. Santosh? Yeah, please. Mike? I'm Vijay Naik, I'm a journalist. I just want to have views of Mr. Faisal on two points, actually. We have been reporting Kashmir for a long time. We have seen Rajesh Pilat, George Nandis, and many others being sent from here to talk to every stakeholder in Kashmir. They had talked to these people. Then they come back, we have got Mr. Dilip Pargavkar's committee going there and discussing all these things. Now, we have seen the same passage, also, policy of this center. But what has gone wrong on these particular things, as Kamal said, it is the center which was responsible for these things. And secondly, what do you have to see of silencing the center voice of the media, like Shudhak Bukhari in government Kashmir? There's two points I would like to have from you, the views. Yeah. Okay, have you written your names? Now I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to have commented. No, I think you have written them. Okay, please, Abulyeh, the gentleman in the, yes, yes, you, yes, you, yeah. You know, there's so many names that this would be arbitrary. I have a short question. I want the panel to ponder upon what would be the role of the Kashmiri civil society. What can they do? Just have a civil society, that's more than important. Yes, yes, Abulyeh, the gentleman in the, yeah, young man in the blue striped T-shirt. I'm sorry if I'm being arbitrary, but I have no choice, yeah. Actually, I was recently in a debate show. I asked the question that the debate show was about the eradicating article 370. So the panelists told that, I asked him a question that this is a great provision you were provided to the Jammu and Kashmir. But in spite of this provision, there is a lot of unrest in the state. So now you're talking about eradicating. Don't you think that there will be more unrest? And he replied, the answer was that by eradicating this, we are making 93% of the Indian population happy. And what is your question? And the question is, yes, I'm coming to that. And the question is that, is this the healthy way, is this the healthy approach for the way forward? And is this what we are showing to the Kashmiri that you've longed us? Yes, at the back. Yes, in the black T-shirt, Abulyeh. Yes, Mike. Sir, today more than development, more than employment, a Kashmiri wants his political aspirations to be fulfilled. Sir, what is your vision for the same? Because all the Kashmiris want is not jobs. Though there is the element of joblessness in Kashmir, we see there have been a lack of development. But more than that, he feels alienated from the mainstream. So what's your vision for the, to bring Kashmiri youth into the mainstream? You know, I'm so happy to have all these questions on education and jobs being raised. I really congratulate all the young people here. It's a very healthy development in our political discourse. Not a single mention of the cow. Thank you. Yes, this young woman. At the back, I'll call upon you later. Yes. You have to be now fair to me and ask a short, sharp question. So recently we saw the central government taking initiatives like taking groups of Kashmiri students to all India too so that they feel inclusive and they feel that they're a part of the country. So do you feel that such actions on the part of the central government are helpful? Do we need mighty earth shattering actions or we need baby steps as a way forward? Yes. On the part of the central government? Thank you. Mr. Faisal, so if you could answer this question. Yes, the gentleman who raised his hand. Poochi. Then I'm going to come to this side because it's been ignored. Short and simple, sir. You mentioned the polarization between the center and the state. I'd like you to touch upon the polarization also within the state, the difference in aspirations of the difference between the people of Jammu and the people of Kashmir, if you could touch upon that as well. Thank you. Yes. I'm going to allow three questions more because there's a very big list that I think the panel will have to respond to. Hello. You can't expect only him. Yes. Yeah, everybody has been there, meet foreign affairs expert or defense expert or who's been there. There has been solution in everybody's mind but they say that it's not going to be done in near future. What's the hurdle? Why it's not being done? All the experts that have been working for Kashmir for the last 30 years, they know, some sort of a solution. Everybody knows. All the people know they've been working for quite a long time. We've got your question. Thank you. What we can do about it? Yes, thank you. Yes, a young lady here. Hello, sir. I'm really happy to see that the Kashmiris are coming forward leaving their bureaucracy and going to the new political system. But my question is about that. Don't you think we need to get to the root level of where from radicalization has started? It's not only about the countries. It's not about India. It's not about Pakistan. I don't want to give it a Islamization phase but we need to see how in Kashmir we are going from Sufi to Salafi thought. We need to get the radicalization. Very good question. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, somebody from this section. Yes, please. At the back. Next is your section. Who's gone? My question is to Shahfaz. Sir, I want to know what's your way of going forward. You said you want to do it in a political way. But we have one of the National Assembly saying that it is beyond my jurisdiction. So what's your way of going forward? Thank you. Yes, from here I'm going to give each section a chance. From this side, yes. Sorry, lack of the draw. Yes. A lot of criticism has been of the center that the center doesn't coordinate. And since you've chosen political life, how do you think you would be different than what we've seen yet coming from Kashmir? Thank you. This section. Yes, the young man in the blue shirt. Poochi, quickly. Hello, I'm Shahzad. Actually, I'm from Assam. I'm very happy that Seema mentioned about the Nellie message. She answered a lot of questions. Thank you. So my question is that dialogue can be a very good solution. So the question is, should it be a bilateral dialogue or should it be a trilateral dialogue? Thank you. Ma'am, one question, ma'am. Yes, the last question from this side. I'll ask. Ma'am, one question here. Yeah, after him. Who's asking? We have established that media, national media and the newsroom, not very good in the country. But how do we change that? How do we do it? We have seen that channels like The Wire are coming up, which are not taking funding from many of the organizations, but are run on public funding. But we have also seen the kind of approach the channels have. So how do we change the media scenario of the country to change the larger parties? Thank you. I think a lot of media is doing so. Ma'am, one question. You have wonderful journalists here. Yes, sir. The gentleman in the... You and the boy in the back, yes. Ma'am, I don't know your name. I have to describe you by your parallel. Hello, sir. My question is to Shah Faisal, sir. Quickly. As a politician, sir, how would you restore my faith in the Indian democracy? Even in 2019, my governor announces the name of the mayor even before two weeks before the actual results. How would you restore my faith in the Indian democracy? Last question. Yes, that young woman and then the young man in the white sweatshirt. Yes. We'll have to take off your mask. Hi. My question is how and where do you envision Kashmiri women in your way forward? Yeah. And you? Yes. Do you think the question of enlarging the democratic space requires as a condition that we incorporate the question of Azadi within the ambit of discussion? Very good question. I was going to say if you're going to enter public life, you've got your agenda. Yeah. It's unfair to expect him to answer every question. So I would request members of the panel to pitch in if when they can. I'm just regulating time. Thank you. I'll be very brief with some of the questions which I think sum up the problem in Kashmir. One would be what happened to those reports and why we always have these interlocutors and the negotiators and the arbitrators coming to Kashmir and nothing happens in Delhi. Because for every large report created in Kashmir, there's a large dustbin in which it's put later on. That dustbin, I mean, we have not been able to kind of figure out how we can possibly reclaim these reports from that and get something going in Kashmir. I think the day there is a sincere political outreach and initiative from Delhi, we'll see definitely some movement happening in Kashmir. Till then, all these, in fact, what has happened over a period of last 30 years is that we have discredited the institution of dialogue. Lost a couple of years back when a group of parliamentarians tried to visit the separatists in Kashmir, they were snubbed because over a period of last 30 years, we have made this institution, these reach out very meaningless. I think we need to bring back credibility to those institutions of dialogue and reach out if we want some movement to happen in the near future. What about the fulfillment of aspirations? I will be clubbing these two questions that in this democratic discourse which we are talking about, is there a space for talking about things which are like taboo words? So I think I have been consistently saying that when it comes to enlarging the democratic space, we need to also allow those taboo words to be discussed. When it comes to people talk about RSD in Kashmir, what do you do? I mean, you better listen to those people, listen to those voices because as I said earlier also that we need to enlarge the idea of saddition, the idea of freedom of speech when it comes to talking about Kashmir. If you really want to listen to all the voices in Kashmir, what about the inclusive tours that are being taken? I think one of the unfortunate failures of the state has been the failure of Sadbalna program, which has happened in the last 30 years. It was a program intended to take Kashmiri youngsters and show them the rest of the country, but the way it was done, it was done in the nature of perception management. It was done in the nature of a PsyOps and PsyOps is something which people easily understand and the fundamental cause of failure of the Sadbalna program was that it was presented to people in the nature of a psychological warfare and people rejected it and that was one of the unfortunate ways in which we lost one more battle in Kashmir. What about the aspirations of Jammu and Ladakh and other regions? I think one of the major problems in Kashmir today is that how we can possibly converge the aspirations of other two regions. That's why maintaining the territorial integrity of the state becomes even more important today than it was before and the attempt to divide the state into multiple regions that are being this time resisted. What was the root cause of conflict about radicalization? If you look at the available literature around radicalization, you will see that movement towards religion happens more in places where there is an element of despair, where there is an element of hopelessness, where there is conflict. I believe that radicalization is a consequence of conflict, not the cause of conflict and this is, I have solid research to prove that religious radicalization to whatever extent happens in conflict zones, that's a consequence, not a cause. Why doesn't centre-take any initiative? That's my question as well, that the people tell me, why don't you tell Pakistan to take an initiative? This is not my job to tell Pakistan to do whatever they want to do. I can tell Delhi and impress upon them to take an initiative. Our job is to tell Delhi to come forward and do something about Kashmir. What should be the nature of the dialogue? People tell us that certain people in Kashmir should be talked to. I believe that everybody should be talked to if you want to solve the problem. Dialogue doesn't have to be trilateral, it will have to be a multilateral dialogue to bring in all the voices on the table about change and how to create alternative media. I would want you to answer that question. How to restore faith in Indian democracy? It's really a big task for me as well because people tell me that the kind of experiments which have happened in the past, those experiments have failed and you're going to fail as well. There is absolutely no reason to trust the democratic institutions of this country but my belief is that we need to give one more chance to ourselves. Whatever has not worked in the past, we need to make it work because we do not have any alternatives other than engaging democratically with the rest of the country. Last one question about the role of Kashmiri women. I think that's one of the most important themes which I'm working on because Kashmiri women are basically the worst sufferers of conflict. It's finally the mother and the daughter and the sister who has suffered really in the last 30 years. I wish we can restore the political agency of the Kashmiri women and my task will be to ensure that when we talk about democratic participation we can possibly restore the agency to the Kashmiri women and reserve their spaces and ensure that they get their due as well in the democratic space. I think that basically sums up most of the questions. Thank you. Before I thank my panelists and Shafezal in particular I'd like to thank the audience. You have been wonderful. It's been a very, very productive session and a big clap for such charged young people. Thank you so much for coming. Thank you. One minute, one minute. I just want to thank the chair for being so wonderful and I also want to thank Shafezal. We were on tenterhooks and I think it shows his character and his courage that he came despite the tensions and the tightrope walking that he thought he would do and he had that character to come down to Delhi as promised to do something else rather than just the lecture. I really admire you for that. I would ask Mr. Murarkar to give Shafezal a little token of books. CPA only believes in books not in money unfortunately and Probeer, another trustee of ours to Neeraj and Dho. Thank you so much everyone for being so good and a wonderful audience. Thank you.