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.

... contd.