He had seen the lady for the first time and made desolate attempts to make her accept the small sum. She broke down as she refused. Razak also offered to return to her native home along with the family. “Our doors are open for you,” he said. This was not merely an encounter between erstwhile neighbours. It is a story full of emotions, the likes of which are being overshadowed by the newly crafted discourse on the return of Kashmiri Pandits to the valley. The video had crossed 250,000 views the last time I watched it, and there were hundreds of emotional comments. Rajesh Raina is the group editor of Hyderabad based ETV.
Back in Srinagar, Delhi and Jammu, the return of Kashmiri Pandits has become a key topic in political discussions once again. During her response to the Kashmir governor’s address to the assembly on May 28, Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti made a confident statement saying she would bring back the Pandits while she is in power. She courted a controversy when she used the “pigeon and cat” analogy, but was firm in asserting that the adjustment of Kashmiri Pandits back in their old homes was not possible for now. In other words, she said there has to be separate accommodation for them, and according to her, “as soon as the situation improves, they can go back to their homes.” Mehbooba did not use the new buzzword “composite townships”, but maintained that these would be temporary accommodations.
She courted a controversy when she used the pigeon-and-cat analogy
But the Government of India has repeatedly referred to this arrangement as “composite townships”. In all the speeches in parliament and the communication with the state government, they speak of identifying land for these separate townships.
It all started on April 7, 2015 when Press Information Bureau, the agency responsible for handling the central government’s media, quoted the then chief minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed as telling the Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh that land would be identified for these composite townships. Though the state government clarified, GoI continued with the same discourse.
And in the response in the assembly, Mehbooba did not categorically deny the concept of “composite townships”. While the government has reiterated from time to time that these composite townships would not be confined to Kashmiri Pandits only, Panun Kashmir, the prominent body of the Pandits, has outrightly rejected the theory of “co-existence” and called for a separate homeland.
The composite townships also do not figure in the “Agenda of Alliance” – the contract between the PDP and BJP when they formed a coalition government – which Mehbooba repeatedly swore by during her speech.
The Agenda calls for: “Protecting and fostering ethnic and religious diversity by ensuring the return of Kashmiri Pandits with dignity, based on their rights as state subjects and reintegrating as well as absorbing them in the Kashmiri milieu. Reintegration will be a process that will start within the state as well as the civil society by taking the community into confidence.”
The wording is straight and unambiguous. It does not talk about any townships, composite or separate.
Even if there will be transit accommodation and not composite townships, the issue has already led to divisions in the communities and political parties across the state. Without really going into how Kashmiri Pandits can return to valley, the issue is being used for settling political scores. The government may construct more transit accommodations, but that has not really worked in the past. And all the efforts to lure Kashmiri Pandits back with dole-outs did not work either.
The previous government constructed safe colonies for them in places like Sheikhpora and Vessu and provided out-of-turn jobs to more than 4,000 girls and boys, but it did not work the way it should have. Only last week, the government promised 4,000 more jobs to them, and promised to help create employment for 6,000 more. But will it make a difference? Many of those who got the jobs in the past returned to Jammu and Delhi. Many Kashmiri Pandits are not ready to leave lucrative jobs, within India and outside, to return to Kashmir. Who will guarantee their security when the government stands even on Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which draws inspiration from the fact that the “situation is not conducive for that”?
While the separatists have every right to articulate their viewpoint, they too have failed to suggest a workable solution. How many times have they reached out to the community with a solution outside of the government’s purview? By taking a particular stance, they are not helping build an understanding based on logic and practicality. They are stakeholders in the process of the resolution of the Kashmir issue, of which the issue of Kashmiri Pandits is a part. But the last 25 years show that they lack direction. The return of the Pandits has to be seen in the context of an approach to the larger political issue. At a time when New Delhi does not care about what is happening on the ground in Kashmir, raising such issues in isolation has the potential of aggravating the situation.
The video shared by Rajesh Raina suggests a different, rather non-controversial, aspect of relationships between communities. Such incidents, even if not very frequent, must be taken as a starting point for a long-term process. Despite the differences and the divide, the relationship between the two communities in Kashmir in the last decade or so has improved. It is important that the civil society on both sides is made stakeholders in a process that could pave way for the gradual return of the Kashmiri Pandits. And they should come back to their homes, not just to Kashmir. And that should not be used to send a message to the majority community that the Pandits have “re-conquered their land”. It is not a matter of land. It is a matter of a displaced community.
They have a right to return, not as agents of one government or another, but as part of the larger Kashmir that was known for tolerance, amity and brotherhood. Both the communities will have to play a constructive role in such a solution. Separate, or “composite”, townships are not the answer.
The author is a veteran journalist from Srinagar, and the editor-in-chief of The Rising Kashmir