So much for the security aspect. But that's only one side of the Kashmir issue. Insurgency, as Kashmir observers point out, is just the symptom. Has the cause been addressed?
Before we get to that, what precisely is the cause?
"Alienation of the Kashmiris," a Kashmir watcher says. "All India has done in 10 years is to hand the trouble over to the army. That's making it a simple law and order problem. But there are social, emotional, political and psychological aspects involved. The government is ignoring that. Have they done anything to win the hearts of the Kashmiris?"
The answer, sadly, is no. And you have only New Delhi to blame for it.
Successive governments came to power, sent in more troops and, when their time ran out, quietly gathered their belongings and exited. The motion of elections that the Kashmiri witnessed from 1996 hasn't helped matters any.
The Kashmiri, thus, identifies India with two things: security forces and the Dr Farooq Abdullah government. Both are impositions on him. He hates both from the bottom of his heart.
"Militancy thrives on the sense of alienation of the Kashmiris," says the observer. "Thousands of innocents have died. Somebody should have told them, look, we are sorry... Has anyone done that?
"You can apologise for Babri Masjid, so why not for 40,000 lives? If you think Kashmiris are Indians, isn't it Delhi's duty to say it is sorry? Shouldn't Delhi say it is sorry?"
Good question. But Delhi isn't bothered.
The new men in Delhi under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee appear to have their own remedy for Kashmir. You get a fair idea what it is from their demand that Article 370 of the Indian Constitution be scrapped.
"That Article grants special status to J&K and indirectly bars a non-Kashmiri from buying land there," explains an observer. "The BJP wants to abrogate it so that they can engineer a change in the state's demography."
"They want to inject pro-India Hindus into the state to counter the anti-India Muslims, who are a majority now," he says. "Thus, even if there's plebiscite, there will be people voting for India."
Despite this pointer, Vajpayee's Hindu government has rekindled hope in many Muslim hearts. Even separatist leaders feel that the prime minister would be able to settle the issue.
"He has a strong government. He would face the least political risk as he is the leader of a nationalist party like the Bharatiya Janata Party," holds Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party chief Shabir Shah. "The right thing for him would be to stop saying Kashmir is non-negotiable and agree to begin an honest peace process over Kashmir," he adds.
Mirwaiz Omar Farooq, the religious head of the majority in Kashmir, too, has faith in Vajapayee -- but not in his government.
"The Lahore journey was a good beginning," says Farooq, who is also a prominent leader in the separatist All-Parties Hurriyat Conference. "But the question is, would the people around him let him have his way?"
However, he feels a solution will evolve shortly. "The West, especially the United States, is taking an active interest in Kashmir," he elaborates. "The next two years will be crucial."
Shah, for his part, isn't that optimistic. "I see an end to this conflict as soon as the leaders of India and Pakistan get serious about peace," he says. "They both have to give up idea of military solution and talk to the primary party to the dispute, the people of J&K. No political solution will emerge until the will of our people becomes the centre of debate."
"And what our people want is no secret: Independence from both India and Pakistan," he adds.
Shah, Farooq and many Kashmir watchers offer the same remedy for the issue: Dialogue. Unconditional dialogue.
"Why do you put conditions? You are ready to talk to the Naga people in Geneva. Then why not talk to the Kashmiris in Kashmir?" asks an observer. "Why say the talks will be 'unconditional'? Nobody expects India to take a decision that is not consistent with its Constitution. You need not say it; it is obvious!"
While Farooq and Shah dream of an independent Kashmir, the observer believes that would not be practical. No government or Parliament will survive such a decision, he maintains.
"What's practical is greater autonomy," he believes.
That idea, however, doesn't appeal to Shah. "Greater autonomy is just an empty promise that can be broken any time. The only permanent solution is giving us independence. That would settle the question, and India and Pakistan can finally move beyond the conflict."
He adds: "Through negotiation with India and Pakistan, we are ready to accept interim phases as long as they will lead to the re-unification and independence of J&K."
The military man, meanwhile, has formulated another strategy. Thus runs his reasoning: militancy will die a natural death once Pakistan's support stops.
"India should not be identified as a soft state. It will help if we can send the message to Pakistan and the international world that we will not tolerate any violation," he says. "If diplomatic efforts are not succeeding, we should be prepared to make the cost high for the civilians in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. That will be a deterrent factor."
"You can't keep reasoning forever," he continues. "March and April are when their launching camps are full of people waiting to infiltrate into India... Bomb them out of existence then! And tell the international world that enough is enough. It is not as if the First World does not know what is happening..."
Additional reportage: Josy Joseph
Concluded
Share your thoughts
){kind=link}