He expressed the government of India’s readiness for dialogue with all sections, including those who have opted out of the political process. He also spoke of normalising relations with Pakistan and a solution of all issues including Jammu and Kashmir, and stressed the idea of ‘making borders irrelevant’.

Clearly the PM is making an attempt to reach out to Kashmiris estranged not only from the Indian state but also from mainstream political processes. At a time when the Central government is faced with the crucial question of holding elections, he is making an effort to return the political situation to normal, or at least to the pre-upsurge levels. But will he succeed and are there any takers for his offer? Syed Ali Shah Geelani has already rejected it, reiterating the demand for self determination, and calling for ‘freedom from Indian imperialism’. Even Mirwaiz Omer Farooq has shown his scepticism towards ‘dialogue for the sake of dialogue’ and being part of the ‘crowd along with people who have no issue with Delhi’.

So can it be concluded that the situation is utterly hopeless — that there is no way to reach out to Kashmiris? For many who have been observing Kashmir over the last few months, the situation appears grave, almost a repeat of the early ’90s when separatism was at its peak. With azadi slogans reverberating in the air, there is no possibility of any kind of initiative succeeding, they argue. Some Indian intellectuals have shown so much pessimism that they have even suggested the ‘unthinkable’ idea of letting Kashmir secede.

However, notwithstanding these dark predictions, reaching out to Kashmiris may not be that difficult a task. Azadi as anyone who understands Kashmir is well aware, is a metaphor that has multiple meanings. Most of the time the slogan is raised not as a proactive demand for self-determination but as a negative reaction to emergent situations. It is an inchoate expression of mass anger, mainly over human rights violations, as well as disillusionment over certain expectations from the state. This is not to argue that there is no demand for self-determination, but to point out that much of the anger and resentment reflected in the streets of Kashmir has its roots elsewhere.

Once the sincerity of purpose is established, these governmental initiatives may generate a very enthusiastic response in Kashmir, of the kind generated by Atal Bihari Vajpayee few years back. Vajpayee was the first PM to publicly admit that India made mistakes in Kashmir. Understanding Kashmiri sensitivities towards the democratic and electoral process, he had promised free and fair elections and delivered it by holding it under international scrutiny. The elections went a long way towards restoring Kashmiri confidence.

Rather than continuing this process, Manmohan Singh government has mostly tried to resolve the problem by focusing on development and engaging the mainstream actors through round table conferences. With no engagement with the separatists for quite a while and no concrete Kashmir-related confidence building measures, there is a building apprehension in Kashmir that ‘normalcy’ is being taken for granted. This has not only generated a feeling of alienation but widespread scepticism.

It is in this context that one can say that the big question about Manmohan Singh’s overtures is not whether Kashmiris will respond to these initiatives or not. In all probability, they will, if there is a concrete proposal (of course, with the exception of Geelani). The question, on the contrary is: will the Manmohan Singh government seriously pursue the idea of engaging Kashmiris and holding dialogue with the separatists?

The writer is a professor in the department of political science at the University of Jammu