It may be neither accidental nor coincidental, yet the timing of the revival of the high-voltage debate over autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir was decidedly inopportune.

For it adds avoidable complications to the task of newly-appointed Special Representative, Dineshwar Sharma, even as he was measuring the several stumbling blocks he would have to overcome if his mission to put the dialogue process back on track were to bear fruit.

While it might have been legitimate for the National Conference to put down some markers by resurrecting its autonomy resolution, was it really necessary for P Chidambaram to broach the thorny subject, that too while electioneering in Gujarat? One possible conclusion is that it was a deliberate bid to derail the reconciliation process: even if there is merit to his claim that there has been only selective interpretation of his statement.

That the Congress party has not fully endorsed the former minister’s line points to his having ~ not for the first time ~ allowed his mouth to run away with his head. Was it also necessary for the Prime Minister to react so sharply, and thus give his party the green signal to launch a counter-offensive? Leaders of the calibre of Atal Bihari Vajpayee or PV Narasimha Rao would have probably ignored the comment, but the present leadership of the NDA feels it would appear timid it if did respond to~ as Rajiv Gandhi had put it ~ “every dog that barks”.

It is inevitable that the slanging match will snowball, and force the Special Representative to douse some fires before he can bring some mellow warmth to the imbroglio ~ if indeed his mandate encompasses that. The apex court’s decision on petitions questioning the validity of Article 35A (the Centre’s ambivalence has raised suspicions) will also influence the atmosphere in which Sharma will try to attain what has eluded other interlocutors for decades.

There is some value to Chidambaram’s point that the demand for autonomy does not equate with the cry for azadi as the BJP consistently contends. It is also unfortunate that, yet again, is political capital sought to be extracted from the exploits of security personnel who have fought and died in J&K.

The National Conference’s insistence that autonomy is at the core of the state’s accession to India is nothing new, indeed the PDP of chief minister Mehbooba Mufti holds a similar view even if it expresses it in different terms~ so if the demand for autonomy is “anti-national”, or whatever else if it is being condemned as, why is the BJP running a government in alliance with those favouring “softseparatism”?

Unless that “basic” difference is sorted out, the Special Representative is unlikely to evolve a formula more “special” than the many previous others that have floundered.