Srinagar, Sep 27 (KNS) : Peoples Conference President and MLA Handwara Sajad Lone on Saturday offered a detailed reading of the 85-page affidavit submitted by Yasin Malik, stressing that its significance goes far beyond the individual or questions of clemency.

“This affidavit is not about Yasin Malik as a person, nor is it about seeking clemency,” Lone said. “It is fundamentally about the sanctity of the institution of dialogue and the threats it faces in resolving conflicts in this region.”

He said that the document presents a first-person account of a Kashmiri who carries hundreds of cases, has been convicted for life, and faces the prospect of the death penalty.

“It is based on real-life events,” Lone emphasized, “but it is more than a legal affidavit. It is, in essence, an academic analysis of the power—or powerlessness—of dialogue to resolve conflicts. It symbolises the relevance—or irrelevance—of dialogue, especially in the context of Kashmir.”

Lone highlighted the affidavit’s central themes: truthfulness, trust, the politics of promises and the consequences of reneging on them. He noted that while these variables are often invisible and sidelined, they are crucial if dialogue is to retain credibility and deliver meaningful outcomes.

Malik’s engagement with Delhi, he explained, was understood by him as a semi-formal dialogue process. Retrospectively, Malik feels that Delhi used dialogue as a tool of statecraft rather than genuine conflict resolution.

“The affidavit is a rare and invaluable resource for students of politics, academics and aspiring peacemakers,” Lone said. “It illustrates how abandoned or mismanaged dialogue processes stigmatize the institution itself and underscores the importance of transparency and accountability.Click Here To Follow Our WhatsApp ChannelDialogue should not be completely shrouded in anonymity.”

PC President also pointed out a critical dimension of the affidavit: the pattern of engagement and reneging on promises is consistent across party lines and bureaucratic institutions. On the use of dialogue as a tool of deception, he noted, “All political parties and bureaucratic institutions appear to perfectly overlap.”

“Conflict will always exist,” Lone said, “but it can be addressed through violent or non-violent means. If dialogue is misused to slander or undermine the other side, it inadvertently encourages violent alternatives. This is not a political claim—it is an academic perspective on the consequences of failed dialogue.”

He emphasized that the responsibility now lies with Delhi. The state must either deny the claims, acknowledge that engagement with Malik was insincere, or take decisions in the spirit of dialogue and commitments made.

How Yasin Malik is treated today, Lone noted, will be an asset or a liability for future rulers and a reference point for anyone seeking reconciliation or dialogue in the future. Past dialogue will serve as empirical evidence of whether the state can be trusted.

He also cautioned against attempts to tactfully denigrate the affidavit by misrepresenting it. He clarified that Malik’s decision not to contest his case is not equivalent to pleading guilty, emphasizing that the document is a meticulously recorded reflection, not a legal strategy.

Concluding, Lone called the affidavit a landmark document that offers lessons far beyond one individual or one political moment.

"Yasin had decided to not contest the case which is totally different from pleading guilty," he wrote.(KNS)