(To) refresh our understanding of the problems signified by Kashmir. Let me ask a few questions ... " Is the status quo acceptable? The question is not about long-established line of control becoming permanent borders, which many in India and some in Pakistan might accept.

The status quo here means life as it is currently lived in Kashmir ... To any normal person, this status quo is unacceptable.

Is better governance the way out? To some in India, better governance in Kashmir means handing over the state, or the Valley, to army rule. Others see it in terms of a clean, development-oriented administration, with  or without 'autonomy' .... Provide (it) back (it) up with firm security measures, and the militants will be isolated. Will better governance isolate the militants and drain Azadi of its appeal? It might. Will it restrain the Pakistanis who back, or enter as, the militants? Probably not. But the hard fact is that New Delhi is not capable of providing better governance in Kashmir ...Do Kashmiris have a genuine grievance? This is a question that India's citizens and rulers prefer not to face. From time to time some things are acknowledged. Yes, some elections in J&K were rigged; yes, New Delhi has at times foisted pliable Governments in Srinagar; yes, corruption has estranged Kashmiris. But there is no admission of, let alone discussion about, the Kashmiris' deepest grievance, which is that their inclusion in India in 1947 was the Maharaja's decision, not their choice ... In Kashmir, New Delhi went back on early commitments it gave (not just to the UN but also to the people of Kashmir) that the state's future would be for its people to decide.

The hurt caused by the denial of their right to choose their future and the non-fulfillment of New Delhi's solemn word might have been healed by a just, sensitive and imaginative administration in J&K. But this could not be provided, and we have seen that it remains a distant dream. It follows that the Kashmiris have had, and continue to nurse, a real and deep grievance ..

There are other facts too about Kashmir: the expulsion of the Pandits ... the heartless killing of many cornered Hindus and Sikhs in the Valley and in Muslim-majority parts of Jammu ... Forgotten or remembered, facts are facts, and Kashmir-related grievances are not the monopoly of the Valley's Muslims.

Are Kashmir's Muslims united? The reference here is not to the varied ethnicities, sects and languages among the Muslims of Indian Kashmir, not to mention the Muslims of Muzaffarabad, Mirpur, Gilgit and Baltistan in Pakistani Kashmir ...

... There is no evidence to suggest that Kashmir's Muslims have incorporated, in their political life, the ingredients of unity. The Hizbullah, the numerous constituents of Hurriyat and Farooq Abdullah's National Conference may be the main players among the Muslims of Indian Kashmir, but they are not the only ones ..

The Kashmiri militants, whether based in the Valley or in Pakistan, do not seem to be aware that if the dream of an independent Islamic Kashmir were ever to come true, it could be followed by the nightmare of an Afghanistan in the Valley.

Do Indians have grievances in relation to Kashmir? ... Some of India's deepest feelings are in fact locked into the India-Pakistan-Kashmir relationship.

These feelings are not about cross-border terrorism. That in the Forties, a majority of the Muslims of the subcontinent subscribed to the two-nation theory is a deeper grievance, which sits on an even deeper grievance. That grievance, from the Hindu angle the most basic of all in the India-Pakistan and Hindu- Muslim relationships (the two arc different yet overlapping), has to do with the violence over time to Hindu sentiments.

It is not just that the Hindu memory retains images of past desecrations. Every time a modern and zealous Muslim, whether Pakistani, Kashmiri or Indian, speaks arrogantly or superficially in relation to Hindus and Hinduism, the old Hindu grievance is given new life ...

If all these things are true, if the above answers have a basis, is there anything that an individual can do? The answer depends on who the individual is. A Kashmiri militant can ask himself or herself whether, given the Indian sentiment, violence or non-violence is the more intelligent way, and whether, even for restoring trust within militant ranks, a frank non- violent strategy is not more likely to work

A Pakistani can ask himself or herself whether there is a step that might touch the heart of Indians and influence the Indian position? Pakistanis know well that Indian political realities will not allow an Indian Prime Minister to modify New Delhi's Kashmir policy. Only a change in the subcontinent's political climate can permit it. Such changes are rare but not unknown to history ...

(Gandhi) failed to prevent Partition. Thai failure, for which he paid with his life, should not blind us to an interesting fact. From August 1947, when India and Pakistan came into being, to January 30. 1948, when he was killed, Gandhi thought, spoke and acted as if he belonged to both nations, to the subcontinent as a whole.

He thought of Pakistanis too as "my people". Whosoever reflects on Kashmir and on the Indo-Pak scene, whether it is Vajpayee. Advani or Musharraf, a leader of one of J&K's numerous groups or an ordinary' citizen of India or Pakistan, the reflection may be aided by recalling the examples of Gandhi and the faces of the children and women of today's Kashmir -- their misery rather than their identity. (Source: The Hindustan Times, 25 September, 2000)

Amitabh Mattoo On Trifurcation Proposal

There is a dangerous new tendency, backed by powerful forces, that is demanding a trifurcation of the main regions of the state ... into separate administrative units. Posing as an imaginative solution, this demand, if conceded, could lead to violent social disruptions in the state and create a communal polarisation that would not just irretrievably destroy the cultural and social fabric of the state, but have dire consequences for communal relations in the rest of India ...

The most important (fact) is the widespread feeling within Jammu and Leh of deprivation as well as political and economic discrimination by politicians from Kashmir. While this feeling of deprivation may have some grounds, it is being exploited by sectarian political groups ... They argue that separation from Kashmir will ensure better  governance, more economic opportunities and a greater share of political power for Jammu and Leh besides helping them to distance themselves from the militancy, In its most extreme form, ideologues of this demand suggest that it is in the national interest to limit the area of operations of the security forces.

This logic is dangerous for at least four reasons. First, trifurcation will destroy the composite identity of the state, which has existed as one unit since 1846, and send a dangerous message to the whole nation ... Second, it will most probably lead to a transfer of Muslims from various parts of Jammu and also Doda Rajouri and Poonch, assuming that the whole province is made into a separate state. Finally, it will lead to such deep communal polarisation that bloody communal riots will inevitably follow.

Two factors have fuelled these regional tensions. First is the Regional Autonomy Committee (RAC) report released by the state government in April 1999 (which) recommends the reconstitution of Jammu and Kashmir's existing provinces into eight new ones. The most controversial part of the recommendations is the manner in which Jammu province is sought to be broken up along communal lines. All Muslim majority areas are sought to be detached from Jammu ostensibly because they share a different ethno-linguistic character ...

The second is the controversial Kashmir Study Group Report, Kashmir: A Way Forward, released in February 2000 ... Painstaking in its details, the report suggests, as one of its plans, the creation of a hypothetical Kashmiri state, sovereign but without an international personality, which includes not only the Kashmir Valley, but also Doda and potentially Gool Gulab Garh tahsil of Udahmpur as well as Poonch and Rajouri (all within Jammu) and even Kargil. While the report argues that areas outside the Valley have been included because these areas are imbued with the cultural traditions of Kashmir, it is no coincidence that all parts included are Muslim majority areas ..

Regional harmony ... cannot be ensured through partitions, but through a decentralisation and devolution of financial and economic power that will treat the panchayat as the primary unit of governance ...

(Also) the return of Kashmiri Pandits to the Valley is crucial for the revitalisation of the traditions of pluralism and communal harmony ... (Source: The Times of India, 6 October, 2000)

Khushwant Singh On Autonomy Proposal

The essence of democracy is to accommodate different people's views as far as possible provided they do not hurt other people or interests of the country as a whole. It is clear as daylight that people of Kashmir are not one people but three divided by religion and language and have three distinct opinions about their future.

Ladakhis are predominantly Buddhist and want Union Territory status; people of Jammu are predominantly Hindu and do not wish to change their existing relationship with the rest of the country; people of the Valley are predominantly Muslim and want more autonomy to run their own affairs.

We cannot reconcile these three disparate views if we treat Jammu, the Valley and Ladakh as one unit. If Farooq Abdullah and his National Conference want more autonomy, they cannot ride roughshod over the views of Ladakhis and Jammuites who do not want it. Most states have been demanding more autonomy for a long time, much before the demand of Kashmir became strident. As soon as Dr. Abdullah had a resolution passed in its favour by the Kashmir Assembly, Akalis in Punjab began to clamour for it and Subhas Ghising revived the call for a separate, autonomous Gorkhaland. Undoubtedly, similar demands will erupt in different parts of the country.

The Central Government should have been prepared for this development. Its thinking on the subject has been very confused and often contradictory. At one time when Farooq raised the issue, ex-Prime Minister Narasimha Rao responded with great generosity. "Sky is the limit", he proclaimed. But no sooner Kashmiris spelt out what they wanted, the Central Government cried "foul" and vetoed their move. It is wrong in thinking that giving more autonomy to the states will lead to disintegration of the country. On the contrary, a truly federal government will strengthen the country's unity. This has been fully established by the experience of Canada, the United States and Australia.

I am also convinced that there can be no final solution of the Kashmir problem without the cooperation of Pakistan. Far too much innocent blood has been shed in this senseless conflict and much bad blood created between the two countries. We must break out of the vicious circle of accusation and counter-accusation and help set up government in the Valley which will ensure rehabilitation and safety of life and property of non-Muslim minorities. It should have power to negotiate terms with Pakistan by which Pakistani trade and bona fide tourists can enter the Valley. The only Indian who is strong enough to head such a state if Farooq Abdullah. He is not only India's best bet but also the only bet. I think he will also be acceptable to Pakistan. (Source: The Nation and the World, 1 September, 2000)