We, the “argumentative Indians”, have nothing to complain about. Day after day we have enough matter to keep us positively engaged. That has indeed been so, always, some would say. But this week, the three-member team of interlocutors to Jammu and Kashmir has become the subject of intense arguments. What’s new? Well, they have not only become the subject of these arguments, they are active participants in them, too. After all, to be fair to them, isn’t an interlocutor “a person who takes part in a dialogue or conversation”?
The use of the word interlocutor can be traced to early 16th Century and going by the Latin origin of the word, interlocutors are those who “speak in between”. We understand that in ancient Greece, Socrates and Aristotle imparted wisdom for posterity through interlocutors such as Cephalus, Thrasymachus Glaucon and so on. Their messages were essentially dialectic. In the current Indian context, we can understand an interlocutor as someone who informally explains the views of a government and can also relay messages back to a government.
The need for interlocutors to play a role in J&K arises from an ironical situation. Just over two years ago, against an election boycott call issued by the separatists, the people of J&K came out and voted for a government for themselves. But that government — the National Conference and Congress Party alliance — has completely failed to reach out to its own people, thereby shattering all hopes for peace and development in the troubled state.
Jammu and Kashmir’s rapid descent into a state of chaos by early 2010 was noted by all with despair. The separatists, having changed their strategy of spreading terror, now engaged unemployed youth as stone-pelters, goading them with radical messages and rewarding them, at times, with material payments. The stones that Kashmir’s angry sang-baz lobbed were unlike the pebbles of David’s catapult. These were rough-edged mortar and granite chunks. For citizens locked indoors for days, the unending curfews, closed schools, poor intelligence which couldn’t differentiate between a common man and a well-trained infiltrator and the consequence thereof, resulted in a trust deficit in the Omar Abdullah-Rahul Gandhi alliance.
A national outcry followed which forced the Government of India (GOI) to consult all political parties in Delhi, who were then rushed to J&K to reassure people of Delhi’s bona fide intentions. Subsequently, to engage with the state’s people in greater depth and to elicit their views, three interlocutors were handpicked and sent to Srinagar. Ideally, visiting people in their environment, rebuilding trust to draw them out to speak and being all ears with camphor-like absorption quality could have helped. This is, in fact, essential because people may, understandably, hesitate to share their thoughts and concerns with those in power, just as those in power will hate to be pinned down to respond to every issue. Therefore, the team could have remained low-key, suave, ear-to-the-ground, flexible and calm.
However on the first day of their visit, the senior and seasoned journalist in Dileep Padgaonkar got the better of him. No brief, no red lines, he claimed, and added that Pakistan has to be involved for any permanent solution to the Kashmir issue. He began his assignment with what Pakistan has been saying for the last 60 years and what the Hurriyat Conference has been chanting since birth. Did Government of India really need Mr Padgaonkar then?
On a broader canvas, would a K.C. Pant or an A.P.J. Abdul Kalam have been a better fit? Or someone a la former Prime Minister I.K. Gujral? It’s not my intention, but all who come to mind are politicians. Could such a team be better than the group constituted by the Prime Minister’s Office? It’s anyone’s guess, I suppose. The grind of politics smoothens rough edges and makes one accountable. The role of journalists, however, is like the emery paper or flintstone used for polishing granite. If, indeed, no brief had been given by the PMO to the interlocutors, as Mr Padgaonkar claims, it would be only reasonable to start from a minimalist position. Gather opinions, views and expectations of as many people as possible and “relay messages back to the government”.
It is worth recalling here that it was the editorial in this paper on October 15, What good can the 3 interlocutors do?, which commented thus: “Their role is more akin to that of accredited journalists, except that the correspondents in question will be reporting to the government, not to independent news platforms that disseminate information to the public”. Instead, the interlocutors started airing their views even before commencing their assignment.
The ministry of external affairs (MEA) is engaging with Pakistan on all bilateral matters. That work continues and shall go on, keeping all agreements in mind and within a framework the government of the day chooses to adopt for itself. If again we go by the “no brief” claim of Mr Padgaonkar, hasn’t he complicated matters for himself? Is the MEA at ease with his “disputed” and “Pakistan inevitable” line? Wouldn’t the MEA have sorted out the Kashmir issue long ago if indeed they were comfortable with these lines?
It is still unclear if there is or isn’t a term of reference for this team. The PMO is yet to respond to calls for clarification. All-India Congress Committee spokesperson, Shakeel Ahmed keen on protecting the national interest, ended up contradicting the interlocutors when he observed: “…we neither support nor oppose what they have said… this is very premature… the interlocutors will work as per the mandate they have been given…” Whose mandate?
The people of J&K have been distanced by their own elected government.
Therefore, Mr Abdullah speaking in support of the observations made by the panel is understandable. The opening of schools and the arrival of the team has given him the much required time and breathing space to introspect.

Nirmala Sitharaman is spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The views expressed in this column are her own