Poor governance coupled with rampant corruption by the Jammu and Kashmir administration spread over decades are accepted as the main reasons for the militancy in the valley. Added to this, the near fraud of parliamentary elections in 1999 in J&K has shaken the confidence of the people in the state about its commitment to democracy. This was clear to me during my recent visit to Srinagar. These developments are unfortunate because from 1996 onwards, it looked as if given honest administration, greater recognition of human rights and letting people exercise their democratic right to choose their own representatives, normalcy may be restored. But alas, the rulers in New Delhi, of whatever hue, have refused to learn. So unfortunately J&K seem to be slipping back, though an objective appreciation of the situation can still retrieve the position.

The High Court Bar complained of making a mockery of habeas corpus petitions against detention. Out of 19,000 such petitions which were filed, only 2,000 were heard and the rest became infructuous because of the expiry of the period of detention. This is a matter of grave concern because as Justice Brennan of the US Supreme Court warned "Nothing rankles more in the human heart than a brooding sense of injustice. Illness we can put up with but injustice makes us want to pull things down".

The role of surrendered militants however is a cause for alarm. Allegations are made of their misdeeds under the protective shield of the Special Task Force (under the Jammu and Kashmir Police) and Rashtriya Rifles.

I found, however, that if. somehow the bona fides of the government for a respectable settlement can be established there may be a response from the various groups in J&K. Though in the past various militant groups always emphasised the holding of tripartite talks including Pakistan, they are now agreeable to holding the initial talks bilaterally with the Government of India. There is sufficient recognition by these groups that geopolitical considerations and internal compulsions in the country cannot permit any government to arrive at a solution which permits Jammu and Kashmir to opt out of India. It appears to me that a broad agreement can be arrived at on the basis of the LoC becoming an international border along with grant of the pre-1953 status to J&K, subject to the holding of fresh elections to the J&K Assembly under the supervision of body of non-political personnel. (Source: The Hindustan Times, 23 December, 1999)