That this approach needs to be changed was acknowledged by the PM himself. Manmohan Singh made a commitment while addressing Kashmiris in Srinagar that there would be zero tolerance for human rights violations. The tenor of his commitment was in tune with the tenor of the peace process, which has brought about a major shift in the country’s political orientation to the Kashmir issue. Some important changes in the political discourse are worth noting. First, the very notion of ‘national interest’ has undergone a change mainly owing to a shift in the relationship between India and Pakistan. Both countries no longer see each other in terms of a conflictual relationship. The ongoing dialogue has taken care of some of the concerns that India had vis-a-vis Pakistan with regard to Kashmir. A consensus has emerged that while settling them, the sovereignty of the two countries will not be compromised and the borders will not be redrawn. This has toned down the earlier emphasis on securing territory.

Terrorism remains the major concern, but is no more defined merely in terms of antagonism with Pakistan. The political discourse even in this context is shifting towards a more collaborative approach. This shift has made the earlier approach of opposition between national interest and human rights redundant. The either/or relationship between the two was the logical consequence of the earlier paradigm which saw Pakistan as a perennial enemy of India and emphasised the need to secure the territorial boundaries of the nation.

The shift away from the ‘territorial’ approach has been complemented by the dialogue approach, which has consequently brought people to the centre of the peace process. As a consequence, dealing with the sensitivities of people has now become extremely important. It was in that light that A.B. Vajpayee, while initiating the peace process, had boldly ‘owned up’ to the mistakes that India had made in Kashmir and had offered a dialogue with the separatists. Manmohan Singh’s commitment to zero tolerance of human rights violations reflects a similar logic. This people-oriented, rather than territory-oriented, paradigm further broadens the scope of human rights and calls for a harmonious construction of its relationship with national interest. With people becoming pivotal to the peace process, national interest and human rights come to complement each other. Thus national interest does not get hurt if the state tries to maintain a good track record on human rights. On the contrary, a bad track record in human rights undermines national interest.

The establishment of peace in the region through the resolution of the Kashmir problem lies at the core of national interest today. That is why the Centre has not only initiated a process of dialogue with Kashmiris but is also seeking to undertake various confidence building measures.

Restoring the trust of Kashmiris in India, however, remains the biggest challenge. Peace cannot be established as long as the Kashmiris remain alienated, and one of the major reasons for this alienation is related to the perception that they have been denied the benefits of democracy and basic rights. The minimum that needs to be done, therefore, is to assure Kashmiris of their place as equal citizens within India’s liberal democratic set-up. One has to understand that the problem of Kashmir is not merely of Kashmiris disowning India but also of India not owning Kashmiris as Indians.

The writer is professor of political science, University of Jammu