This is not going to be easy. As in the first instance, the representative character of Hurriyat will have to be checked before they are made a party to the talks. No Hurriyat leader can claim that he speaks for the entire State and even the extent of their following in Kashmir valley is yet to be established. As they have never participated in any elections so far, their following among separatists is also under dispute. Also the extents of the followings of the faction of Hurriyat under the leadership of Sayeed Ali Shah Gillani, even if one were to disregard the claims of mainstream parties like the National Conference and PDP.

As for regions like Jammu and Ladakh, the claim of leaders belonging to Hurriyat to speak for them would not be worth considering as they do not have any backing in these regions. Under the circumstances, many substantial issues will have to be decided before any group or political party can become a party to the dispute. This, however, should not stand in the way of a dialogue starting between the Hurriyat leaders and the Government of India which has declared its willingness to talk to all groups in Jammu and Kashmir irrespective of their affiliation or political leanings.

In case of Jammu and Kashmir, the three distinct regions not only represent different communities, but also have different aspirations. While for some in Kashmir, being independent may be the best solution, the Ladakh region would be keen to be administered directly by the Union Government as it feels that enough attention is not paid to them by the State Administration. As for Jammu region, some voices are being raised in favour greater autonomy, but the region is yet to speak in one voice.

As such before one settles the issue of representative character of Hurriyat or rather one faction, lot of work will have to be done on the ground by establishing independent authority for verification of wishes of residents of Jammu and Kashmir. Under the circumstances, the best option will be to carry forward the process of normalization in the State. This could be done by developing links between two parts of State divided by line of control, by bringing about peace and getting the militants to agree to a ceasefire. Without movement on these issues, it will be difficult to look for a solution.

Dr Manmohan Singh has stated very clearly that he has no mandate for redrawing the boundaries, but a lot can be done without trying to do what is not practical. The return of peace itself will be a big improvement which can be followed by free movement across the line of control and free trade. Yet, another fact which needs to be accepted is that improvements along the line of control in Jammu and Kashmir can only be a part of overall developments in relations between India and Pakistan. There is no hope for Jammu and Kashmir to become an area of light while rest of the sub-continent is living in darkness.

The recent shocks in the ranks of Bhartiya Janata Party following the remarks about founder of Pakistan Mohammad Ali Jinnah by Mr. L.K Advani during his visit to Pakistan should come as a warning as it shows how much distance will have to be covered before people in India and Pakistan move ahead on the road of mutual friendship and foment close ties between the two countries.

Unfortunately, Mr. Advani did not make a distinction between Mr. Jinnah, who insisted on partition of India on religious basis and one, who wanted both the communities to live in peace after partition and to forget the memories of unfortunate happenings during the division of two countries, which witnessed large scale killings and looting leading to mass migration of population. The advice of Jinnah after the creation of Pakistan was a sound one, but rulers of Pakistan chose to build a society based on fundamentalism and not tolerance suggested by its founder.

In the present day Pakistan, not only non-Muslims have been declared as second class citizens, but even Muslims belonging to sects like Shias and others have become victims of intolerance and hate. Under the circumstances, what Mr. Advani stated in Pakistan would require a debate instead of being condemned outright. If Mr. Advani was trying to build bridges with Pakistan and reminding his audience to follow the path shown by the its creator, he should be admired but if he was endorsing all that happened including partition of the country on religious basis, he probably was carried away by excitement of going back to the land of his birth.