A recently released cable by Wikileaks created both elation and dismay. According to the diplomatic cable Mirwaiz Umar Farooq who leads the Hurriyat conveyed to the Americans his solution for the Kashmir dispute. He wanted the Line of Control (LoC) to be converted into an international border; three separate legislative assemblies for the Valley, Jammu and Ladakh; the Governor and Chief Minister from each region to assume office by rotation. He is quoted with the view: “First, the LoC would become border, but every effort would be made by parties on both sides to make it irrelevant similar to the soft barriers that define borders in Europe.” According to the cable many others like the People’s Democratic Party led by Mufti Mohammed Sayeed and Mehbooba Mufti also supported similar views.

The elation arose from this constructive proposal which offers a basis for meaningful negotiation. It may be recalled that top RSS leaders on the other extreme have also voiced the opinion that the Valley, Jammu and Ladakh be made separate states, and the Valley be granted pre-1953 autonomy with some modifications. The National Conference has long advocated such autonomy. My own view has always been that J&K should be trifurcated into three states, and New Delhi should strive for an association like the European Union with Pakistan that eventually would allow soft borders and no visas.

The dismay arose from the inhibition displayed by the Mirwaiz to publicize his views. Clearly there exists a real prospect for a consensus approach by all parties on the Indian side. Such publicly acknowledged unity would greatly facilitate India’s efforts to bring Pakistan on board. Instead of propagating their views the Hurriyat leaders confine themselves to criticizing the army and the police. Human rights are crucial and everything must be done to achieve them. But surely that should not preclude the effort to find a lasting solution as well? And for the solution to be lasting should not the public be taken into confidence and its opinion prepared for the change? 

The Mirwaiz has not propagated his views to the public. He runs to Beijing, to Washington, to Islamabad and to New Delhi looking for support. He does not seek to influence the public. He reflects in fact the malaise that has overtaken Indian politics. Decisions are sought to be achieved through bargains behind the curtain. Popularity is sought through sound bytes on television.

Gestures have replaced actions. Postures have replaced policies. Political leaders attempt to acquire substance without strength. They little realize that lasting strength comes only from the public. And the public has more common sense than all the great leaders adorning the various national capitals put together. The Mirwaiz should start addressing the public with total candour. The result might surprise him.