The release of the leaders of the All Party Hurriyat Conference is welcome. But why in the first place were they put under detention, just after the parliamentary election in 1999 were over? And why have they been released in instalments? Union Home Minister L.K. Advani has said that the release was not a casual action but was "an initiative towards peace and normalcy in Kashmir". Citing the example of talks between the Government of India and the Naga rebels and Bodo militants, he expressed his government´s willingness to talk to the militants in Kashmir "on every demand, legitimate or perverse".
Asked about the demand for restoration of pre-1953 position in Jammu and Kashmir, Advani said talks could cover even this aspect, the basic parameter being the need to remain within the Indian Constitution. This is certainly a distinct advance over the traditional Bharatiya Janata Party position, which has held that abrogation of Article 370 is the solution to the Kashmir problem, and over the recent statements by the leaders of the Jammu BJP and by other members of the parivar in which they have equated the demand for autonomy with that of azadi and treason.
But is this advance far enough to the ground where the Hurriyat can reach? Can it afford to accept the terms of settlement that Farooq Abdullah´s National Conference has been demanding from the Centre? There are obvious and formidable difficulties on both sides to changing their declared stands too drastically. Despite much media speculation, not much is known about the groundwork done by mediators preceding the release of the Hurriyat leaders. Yet, some tentative suggestions may be made to whosoever may care to consider them.
The release of the Hurriyat leaders should not necessarily be linked to a settlement, and even if no basis is found for talks they are entitled to remain free unless they break a specific law. In fact, the other political leaders in detention against whom there are no criminal charges should also similarly be released.