 Welcome to NewsClick Pakistan and Kashmir have become and come to acquire are being used as in a pejorative sense as elections draw close. A lot has happened in the recent time so it's worth our while to revisit some of the issues that have already been discussed by mainstream media. But today we have with us Aumajit Singh Dullat who retired as the head of research and analysis wing and then he was posted as advisor to the government of India on Jammu and Kashmir. But very significantly Mr. Dullat served from 1988 to 1990 the two years preceding the start of insurgency. So he has a very close understanding of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. So we'll be discussing developments both in Jammu and Kashmir as well as our relations with Pakistan with him. Welcome to NewsClick sir. Thank you. I'd like to start with Pulwama suicide attack. One thing that has intrigued us many of us is that while Pulwama resulted in India undertaking air incursion and firing missile in Balakot so called terror camps. The issue that has been missed out or has been underplayed is the issue of suicide bombing which reemerges after a gap of nearly 19 years if a Kashmiris involvement has to be kept in mind. And at least 15-16 years since Jaish-e-Mohammad more or less became defunct or went into the background after 2003. So how important and how significant is the suicide bombing in Jammu and Kashmir in light of recent developments? You know it's significant mostly because of the involvement of one of our own boys and like you pointed out that it's been a long time if ever. I cannot recall when last a Kashmir kid was involved in a suicide bombing because most of the suicide bombings have been carried out from across by Pakistanis. So it is significant and it is more significant in the light of what is happening in South Kashmir. So you know when something like this happened in Pulwama one is not totally surprised because Pulwama has been the hub of all that has gone wrong in the last two and a half or three years now. But it is a terrible tragedy because I think those who carried it out the Jaish and this boy himself would perhaps not have thought that it would result in the death of 40 CRPF men. So it's a horrendous tragedy. But what does it represent do you think in terms of the conditions in Jammu and Kashmir today? What does it tell us about the situation? The situation has seen a marked deterioration since the summer of 2016. I mean I happen to be there. I have this Kashmir obsession and I visit Kashmir almost every summer. The hotels were packed, not a room available, the flights were absolutely booked to capacity. So it gave you the feeling that everything is looking good. But talking to Kashmiris one got the sense that under the surface all was not well and something was going to give. And then I heard these murmurs that eat go hojana deejay and then we will see what happens. But actually it happened before eat because Burhanwani got killed. And then after that all hell was let loose. As they say the dogs of war were let loose and it's never been the same after that. Initially we were trying to contain whatever happened because a lot of the rural folk, villagers got involved. And I remember that the day I was coming down from Srinagar I read a statement of the army commander, General Hooda, who said very honestly that when whole villages come out in support of militancy there is nothing the army can do. So he was being very candid. And then the response has been quite heavy-handed. And that has never worked. It has never worked in Kashmir. It has never worked worldwide in trying to end an insurgency or to stop an insurgency. It has not worked. It does not work. And so I would say that this whole idea of operation all out and a muscular policy and all has not worked. So what is it in the situation? What is it in Kashmir that is missing and which results in young men even thinking in terms of turning themselves into weapons? There's a lot which is missing. Let me give you an example today that if you look at what we call the political landscape of Kashmir, anybody who is somebody with political aspirations is locked up. And the only people around are the mainstream people. And they are also being at times referred to as anti-national. Now if Farooq Abdullah is anti-national, if Mahbubah is anti-national, as Mahbubah has said sometimes that there will be nobody to raise the tricolor in Kashmir. So we have all together totally just forgotten the Kashmiri. Despite all that has happened, Delhi has never thought of consulting somebody like Farooq Abdullah. He's been Chief Minister thrice. He is son of the great Sheikh. He has been a union minister. And you don't want to talk to him? You don't talk to Mahbubah who was your alliance partner until very recently? We don't talk at all. Why? Why is it that? Because obviously Delhi feels we don't need to talk. Delhi has undergone even earlier when there were opportunities. Delhi did show some willingness to talk but somehow it was not seriously carried through. Or something was lacking which always resulted in this not materializing. What is it happening now? What is the difference between past and present? I mean this government since it took over in 2014 and the previous governments. Especially since you were there as an advisor to the first NDA government which was led by Atal Bihari Bajpayee. You know when Mufti Sahib became Chief Minister, 2015, March 1st, 2015, I attended his swearing-in in Jammu. And he said that it is the secular DNA of India which has encouraged us to join with the BJP. And then in the course of time on a couple of occasions he talked about talking to Pakistan and he also said that the only way forward in Kashmir was the Vajpayee way. The rest is a waste of time. Mufti Sahib is on record having said that. And ultimately during Prime Minister Modi's visit to Srinagar, again Mufti Sahib made this fatal mistake of saying that we need to talk to Pakistan and he was badly rebuffed when the Prime Minister said I don't need to be told what to do with Pakistan or what to do in Kashmir. And that must have hurt Mufti Sahib terribly. He died a broken man. Well not talking to pro-Indian parties compounds the problem that we are already facing in Kashmir. Because it rules out the possibility of any talk with those who are fighting for our land. If you are watching Kashmir it's very interesting that we have rubbed everybody so much the wrong way that now because of the election campaign both father and son, the Abdullah's, are talking of bringing back the Prime Minister and the Sardar-e-Riasat and they are saying it loudly. And yesterday I heard Dr. Farooq Abdullah speaking in Ghandarwal and he said I am autonomy leaker having it and he is saying it very strongly. And he said if India and Pakistan don't make peace then this part of the world is in big trouble. I'll come back to this thing about autonomy a little later. There is another point he made interesting which I mean I'm sure everybody understands that but nobody has ever mentioned it. He said in Pulwama 40 people died, our martyrs, CRPFK. So he did so much harm, he did something, he sent a ship to Pakistan. And he died so many times in 36 years. There Mr. Modi didn't do anything wrong. But tell me one thing, I mean even the pro-Indian parties are very clear. That if government of India seeks a political resolution of the conflict, of the dispute then the only way forward is by talking to the separatists. They've been one, I mean all the parties are one on this issue that you have to talk to the separatists. The question of talking to the separatists under the present dispensation when they are unwilling to talk even to the mainstream parties or take them seriously and in fact are going out of the way to undercut them. What chances do we have for any political resolution now on Kashmir? It's not just a question of resolution, you know. I would say can we move forward, can we get a move on? And there is no forward movement at all because you know elections seem to play a big role in everything. Everything is politicized and possibly the government's power feels that at this point of time talking would go against election interests. But they are raising the stakes you see because by raking up the issue of article 35A, article 370 cracking down and banning organizations like Jamaat-e-Islami and Jammu-Kashmir Liberation Front which laid down unilaterally arms in 1994 and Yasin Malik in fact came over ground by saying that he is going to shum the path of violence and take to non-violent means to carry on with this campaign. Now they are cracking down on all elements. I mean Jamaat-e-Islami which is more or less after 1997 declared itself to merely remain as a socio-economic organization with the social outreach programs and things like that in ideological work. Now what is it that you see and read behind? Government of India's moves to clamp down on all expression and all shades of opinion and Jammu-Kashmir. Where is it going to lead us? 2019 election. But we would have queued the pitch for any resolution post that? No, not necessarily. For instance, right now Imran has been sending out a lot of messages for peace and there has been no response from our side. And you also know that nobody from Government of India attended the Pakistan National Day function here, which has never happened before. But once Modi Ji comes back to power, he will talk to Pakistan. That is a certainty. That's a given. That's a given. You know how and when and that we have to wait and see but he will certainly talk to, how long can you not talk to somebody? How permanent can this Kutty be? I'll come to Pakistan because I want to first deal with Kashmir. Coming back to your question, I understand sir. But let's stick to Kashmir for the time being because we are arresting people right left and set up, cracking down, media has been controlled. Media has been controlled everywhere. No, but the extent to which they are being penalized, for instance withdrawal of advertisements and all, the shutting down of internet at the drop of a hat, which sends everybody in a disarray. Nothing seems to be happening except for repression and greater in control. That's what I said at the outset, that force has never worked. It will not work. You know, you can go back to Kalana's Raj Tarangani or you can read Mahatma Gandhi on Kashmir or you can in a more general way read Rabindranath Tagore. The message is the same, that force never helps, it never works. And let me remind you of, since we are into insurgencies, that as far back as between 1948 and 1950, the British had a big problem in Malaya. And that was the time when they went deeply into this whole business of insurgency. And a certain Field Marshal Templar and a certain General Harry Briggs wrote the first handbook on how to deal with insurgency. And the core of that handbook is, you must win the hearts and minds of the people. And that handbook, sir, is still relevant. It may be relevant, but apparently the Government of India doesn't think too much of it. No, no, no, no. Because let me remind you, no, let's not forget our own army. Actually, and the army has done a very good job in Kashmir from time to time. Whenever Kashmir has been under pressure. And the army did work on winning hearts and minds of the people. And actually, the army has been quite popular in Kashmir. It is only now that things have gone to such an extreme that alienation has gone through the roof. But the real sticking issue, sir, seems to be that under the present dispensation, there is absolutely no willingness to even talk about autonomy. Let alone just talk to the separatists. They're not even willing to because they're now talking about so-called integration of Jammu and Kashmir into which has been an old RSS demand for a very long time from right from 1950 onwards. So this is nothing new that they are demanding except that they are now in power. And everybody who's in establishment today seems to be on board on this issue of trying to so-called mainstreaming Jammu and Kashmir, which means completely doing away with autonomy. No, in light of that. Not necessary, not necessary. I think, I'm glad you mentioned the word mainstream because I think that is what government of India has been trying to do ever since 1947. If there is clarity on anything, it is on this that gradually Kashmir needs to be mainstream. And it has been mainstreamed. If you look at what has happened, if you go back to 1947 and 53 and 75 and 88 and today and 2002 and 2008 and 2014, there has been so much mainstreaming. And actually, as a result of all this, Pakistan was totally out of the equation. We have, post-Buranwani, invited the Pakistanis back again. Pakistan has given up on Kashmir. Even today, let me say, there is no great love for Pakistan in Kashmir. You know, when these green flags and black flags and all these flags come out, they come out of frustration. They come out of anger and ultimately out of disgust. It does not mean that a black flag is that these boys have turned to ISIS or the green flag is for Pakistan. No, it's just frustration. You mentioned that India's aiming, its objective has always been to so-called mainstream Jammu and Kashmir and it's been happening. That's the way I look at it. It's been happening. Which means that autonomy has obviously been eroded. And eroded to a point where today it's only article 35A, which is there to... There's 35A and there's 370 or whatever is left of 370. Now, in light of that... After all, even Sheikhs have compromised so much in 75. Correct. How do you believe that when the whole project has been to mainstream, which means to do away with autonomy, how do you ensure that Kashmiris will feel confident in remaining part of India where the autonomy has been eroded? No, no, no. You see, nobody from Delhi has said that we will do away with autonomy or that we want to end autonomy. In fact, if you go back to Narasimha Rao and Dr. Farooq was quoting him profusely last evening, that he said, if it is autonomy within the Indian constitution, then the sky is the limit. You can have one. Sir, may I remind you of Gujarat-e-Lananda as the acting prime minister said, where he made a statement on the floor of the parliament, which is authoritative, where he made it very clear that we have hollowed out article 370. Now, in light of all this, where autonomy has been hollowed out, government of India, especially the present dispensation shows no willingness to, as you yourself mentioned, even talk to a pro-Indian leader like Farooq Abdullah. Where do you think are the chances for a political resolution, a peaceful political resolution of this conflict? I am an optimist in all this. And that's why I've kept myself abreast of what happens in Kashmir. Otherwise, long ago I would have thrown in the towel, but I still follow Kashmir because it's gotten to my bloodstream. But I don't give up on these things, you know. And the thing is that we need to engage with the Kashmiri and it should be an engagement which should be consistent and it should be there always. So that if Farooq wants to come and meet the Prime Minister, he should be able to meet the Prime Minister. And when you go into consultation, the Kashmiri should be consulted. And I don't see any reason for things not improving. Of course, we have come to a situation which is pretty bad. But in Kashmir, things can change, you know, pretty quickly. Sometimes overnight, we've seen that happen over and over again. And one thing is for sure that the Kashmiri craves peace, you know. Recently, you would recall when that former Norwegian Prime Minister, Bandavi Kevan, met the Huryat. The message that the Mirbaz sent back with him to Delhi was that please tell them we want peace and we are prepared to sit down and talk. No, what more do you want? No, from the Kashmiri side, there is willingness. But the point is whether an ideologically driven party like BJP, which is today in power, and which... I think things will change after the elections. That's what you... How do you, where do you place Congress manifesto and it's what it has to say on Kashmir? How do you read that? I think it's a... I was talking to somebody from Srinagar a little while ago. I think it's a fantastic manifesto for the Kashmiris because, you know, we keep talking about the Vajpayee way. And if there is one leader who is really revered in Kashmir, it is Vajpayee. Kashmiris have not forgotten Vajpayee. And this is, I would call it Vajpayee way plus. Because Vajpayee never talked about Afspa and the disturbed areas act and that. So this has... it is Vajpayee. And if I might say it, it has a Chidambaram stamp on it. You know, this manifesto. I don't know if he was a... if he was consulted. But the whole Afspa idea, if you recall, when Omar Abdullah pleaded very strongly with the center as chief minister for just partial removal of Afspa from Srinagar and a bit of Badgam, Chidambaram supported him. So you were there from 1988 to 1990, the two critical years preceding outbreak of insurgency. Actually insurgency started in 88. 88. And that winter of 89-90 was a very, very bad... HSD erupted. Very bad winter. Yeah. Now, in light of that and what has happened in the last three decades where things have... Today, they have deteriorated very sharply from what it was around 2012-2013. What possibilities do you see of arresting this development? Because talking is not the only thing. There surely must be some other confidence-building measures that have to be taken to build up the confidence of the people about talk. So what do you see happening? Like you said, all these people who have been locked up. I don't think there's any need to keep so many people locked up. And almost everybody with the separatist inclination has been locked up. With the exception of the Mirwais who's actually frightened to come out of his house. So I think these people have to gradually be released. I'm sure the courts will... Do developments in Jammu have an impact on Kashmir? Because you served as the IBG, joint director in Jammu and Kashmir. Yeah, of course they have. Both have an impact on each other. And therefore the rise of Hindutva, does it impact developments in Kashmir? This thing, this polarization actually began in 2008. If you recall, there was that Amanat agitation. And that is when polarization began. And now it has increased manyfold with the alliance. Because the alliance really, actually it was the only possible alliance that could have materialized out of the 2014 election. And Mufti Sahib called it joining together of the North and South Pole. But they never got together. Actually it was a great opportunity for ending that polarization. But on the other hand it has increased now that polarization. Tell me one thing, sir, and this is a masking tape. And also let me tell you that both parties have lost as a result. The PDP has lost hugely in the valley. You will see when elections are held. And the BJP also has lost in Jammu. It will find it very difficult to get 25 seats again in Jammu. Tell me one thing, sir. When the mainstream India itself is undergoing a change for the worse. I mean, we are moving and hurtling towards a situation where with vigilantism and lynchings and language of discourse, which is unheard of. We have never experienced it in the last 70 years of the kind that we are seeing today. Why would Kashmiris have any faith and any hope and any confidence in mainstream India? The Kashmiri, you made a couple of points. Well, let me say the poor Kashmiri has nowhere to go. He talks Pakistan. But Pakistan is only at best or at worst a fallback position for the Kashmiri. He doesn't want Pakistan. But when things get really bad, then he talks of Pakistan. And as far as India is concerned, whatever we have seen, which is not some of it, not the very best of India. I think India is too big and it will not carry on like this. These are aberrations, I think, because I would go along with what Mufti Sahib said that the DNA of India is secular. It's a pretty strong DNA. So I have a lot of faith in this country. I think it's a great country. It's the largest democracy. It has been genuinely secular. And these are aberrations. Where do you put talks with Pakistan and the likelihood of any opening with Pakistan? Pakistan we have to talk with. You have stated you have maintained that position for a very long time. You see, I go back to Prime Minister Vajpayee. I had the privilege of watching the great man closely for five and a half years. Two years in the RNAW and three and a half in his office. And he was convinced on two things. He was a man of very few words. But some things were quite clear. One was that this permanent confrontation with Pakistan has to end. That's why he took the bus to Lahore. And he said in Lahore that we will let the war take place. He and Mian Sahib Nawaz Sharif. So these were his core beliefs. And as far as Kashmir went, likewise he felt that we need to move forward in Kashmir. The status quo is not good enough. Dr. Manmohan Singh also had spoken on the floor of parliament saying that war is not an option with Pakistan. Absolutely. Dr. Manmohan Singh actually carried forward the Vajpayee agenda. And that is why, while demitting office, he says that they were only a signature away from reaching an agreement. Now if that agreement had been reached, I feel, maybe wrong, I feel we might have had 15 years of peace in Kashmir. But we need to talk to Pakistan. That you're sure. Absolutely. No matter how you also call it the factory of terrorism. Of course it is the factory of terrorism. It is. And we've also borne the brunt of it. But then Pakistan is also a neighbour and an important neighbour. Recently, not long ago, you know, Sudhinder Kulkarni, he made a remark that if we were to patch up with Pakistan then we don't have to bother about China. It's a significant remark. I wouldn't entirely agree with him because China also is a very important, a much larger neighbour. And we should try and be at peace with both. But I think it's much easier making peace with Pakistan than it is with China. I'm not a diplomat. Do you think the developments in Afghanistan and US pull out from Afghanistan and the emergence, re-emergence of Taliban will have an impact on India, particularly Kashmir and our relations with Pakistan? It has a marginal impact on Kashmir. I would say only marginal. But as far as Afghanistan goes, I think we lost the plot a long time ago, you know. And that is why we are now... You mean by not talking to Taliban? Yeah, not talking to Taliban. You know, we've had so many opportunities. The signals from Taliban have even been to the extent that we prefer doing business with you than with Pakistan. But I don't know. It seems nobody picked up those signals. At least they're not very apparent now. And that is why Pakistan calls the shots in Afghanistan. And that is why the Americans, you know, can't get too funny with Pakistan. Whatever they might say, they need Pakistan. We lend on this note. If you keep watching NewsClick and if you have any feedback, any comment, do let us know and write to us. Once again, thank you for watching NewsClick.