READ BEFORE YOU PROCEED:
D2G wears no responsibility of the views published here by the respective Author. This Editorial is used here for Study Purpose. Students are advised to learn the word-meaning, The Art of Writing Skills and understand the crux of this Editorial.
MEANINGS are given in BOLD and ITALIC
Two weeks after protests in the Kashmir Valley caught the authorities by surprise, a semblance (the outward appearance or apparent form of something, especially when the reality is different) of calm has been restored. It is a tenuous (very weak or slight) one, built on extended curfews, and it has come at a huge price. Even as the government faces difficult questions about the blunt ((of a cutting implement) not having a sharp edge or point) tactics employed to disperse crowds of stone-pelters across Kashmir, there is an evident effort at political outreach.
Speaking in the Lok Sabha, Home Minister Rajnath Singh sought an all-party meeting to address the problem. Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti chaired another such meeting in Srinagar that asked Delhi to engage in a larger political dialogue with all stakeholders, “including separatists”. These are important, necessary steps.
But given the record of outreach in the Valley, the Centre needs to get its framework for a political conversation right. If the proposal to include stakeholders in a larger process is to be credible, the idiom must be genuine. Regrettably, far too much of the vocabulary on Jammu and Kashmir is platitude and hollow cliché (a phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought).
The challenge before the government is to demonstrate that it is not reaching out as an automatic response learnt from some worn-out troubleshooting manual — but to show it has acknowledged the outrage, weariness, and distress in the Valley. That it cares enough to be open to being nudged out of its certitudes (absolute certainty or conviction that something is the case).
Former Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s suggestion this week that India assure the people of Kashmir that it is conscious of the spirit of the grand bargain promised at accession almost 70 years ago has invited a rebuttal (an instance of rebutting evidence or an accusation) from a senior BJP Minister at the Centre. Even the Congress party has reacted cautiously to the wide-ranging interview to India Today TV in which he emphasised (give special importance or value to (something) in speaking or writing) the importance of carrying Kashmiris along.
But if national politics means to respond to the cries of agony (the final stages of a difficult or painful death) from the Valley this month, it must adopt Mr. Chidambaram’s touchstone — that the issue in the Valley is not about land but about people. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had forged a way forward by seeking talks within the framework of “humanity”, thereby sidestepping the issue of allegiance (loyalty or commitment to a superior or to a group or cause) to the Constitution.
The gains of that breakthrough have long since been dissipated ((of a person or way of life) overindulging in sensual pleasures). Mr. Chidambaram’s appeal that India accept an “asymmetric devolution of powers” for J&K, which it has recommended for the Tamil provinces in Sri Lanka, is one such idea that could open a route forward. It should not be reflexively dismissed.
#################
