The issues in J&K are terrorism, revocation of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) and radicalisation of youth. Development is barely mentioned by the PDP and NC.

As the fifth and final phase of voting in Jammu and Kashmir's six parliamentary constituencies ends on May 6, the wide differences in voter turnout are stark. In certain segments of former J&K chief minister Mehbooba Mufti's terror-infested Anantnag constituency, the turnout was barely over 2 per cent.

The victim's ruse

The United Nations Security Council's listing of Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist will have little electoral impact in the Valley. Mehbooba lost trust among voters after the Peoples Democratic Party's (PDP) doomed alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Appealing to her base, Mehbooba declared that abrogating Article 370 would end J&K's relationship with India: "If the conditions of the accession are removed, then the relationship of J&K with the Union of India will also end."

National Conference (NC) leader Omar Abdullah also threatened a reversion to J&K's pre-1953 status, when the state had its own Prime Minister, if the BJP abrogated Article 370. Abdullah is playing to the gallery. Article 370 has, over the decades, been so eroded that its abrogation hardly matters anymore. It is routinely mentioned in every BJP manifesto but is not a serious electoral issue.The Abdullahs and Muftis benefit by playing to the autonomy gallery.

Both have served in NDA governments and nuance their positions based on season and location. The issues in J&K are terrorism, revocation of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) and radicalisation of youth. Development is barely mentioned by the PDP and NC. Their strategy is singleminded: appeal to the Valley's sense of grievance against the Indian Army, feed into the idea of autonomy, and play up Kashmiri victimhood.

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan's remark that peace with India would be more likely under a Narendra Modi-led government has sparked a new debate. Khan clarified that a Congressled government, traditionally seen as soft on Pakistan, would be "too scared" to make bold moves over resuming a structured dialogue with Islamabad.

But Khan's comments have seduced many commentators in Pakistan who believe talks and terror are not mutually exclusive. In a recent article, Ayesha Siddiqa, a research associate at SOAS, University of London, wrote: "The general sense is that with Modi at the helm of affairs, war and conflict will mark the tone of relations between the two countries.

However, this would be beneficial for Pakistan's nationalist project which gets strengthened with every news of mob lynching of Muslims and other minorities from India. This is not to argue that the state of minorities in Pakistan is any better. But New Delhi no longer represents a secular ideal. For Islamabad, a non-secular India is easier to contest."

Mirror theory

This is the usual attempt to draw a false equivalence between plural India and theocratic Pakistan. The asymmetry is even more stark economically: India's GDP is nearly 10 times Pakistan's and its foreign exchange reserves nearly 40 times as large. The detachment from this reality prevails among Indian commentators as well. Former PDP leader Haseeb Drabu, is mistyeyed about cross-border trade between India and Pakistan. The trade was suspended recently by India's ministry of home affairs (MHA) because of the brazen misuse by smugglers and terror financiers.

Drabu wrote: "The trade between the two parts of Jammu & Kashmir across the Line of Control (LoC), which started in 2008, was stopped last week. The suspension of the cross-LoC trade is part of a larger change in the strategy for dealing with Kashmir at the policy level.

The suspension of cross-LoC trade is a regressive step not only for what it was but also for what it represented. Even with complete apathy, if not downright hostility, from both the governments of India and Pakistan, the annual trade volume cranked up to `3,500 crore last year. The business potential stands well established."

Dialogues don't work

The terror potential stands equally well established. Open, porous borders have allowed infiltration and the easy movement of contraband by smugglers. The petty amount of trade (Rs 10 crore daily) does not justify the risks it entails. "Indian agencies have identified 10 Pakistan-based militants, all originally from Kashmir who are running trading firms that are suspected to have misused cross-LoC trade channels to pump terror funds, illegal weapons, drugs and fake currency into J&K," as per one report.

The serial terror attacks in Sri Lanka by the Islamic State (ISIS) with links in Pakistan has revealed a new dimension in Islamabad's bid to encircle India with terror sleeper cells in Sri Lanka to the south and Bangladesh in the east. Imran Khan says dialogue is the only way forward for India and Pakistan. And yet, talks over the past 20 years have not reduced terrorism.

Terror is an indispensable policy instrument for Pakistan. The Pakistani Army's central role in the country would end if the conflict with India ended. Talks with India are aimed at giving Pakistan international respectability. They are not meant to end the conflict with India on which the Pakistani Army thrives, nor are they meant to end terrorism which is the Pakistani Army's toxic way of waging low-cost war on India.

(The writer is an author and publisher. The views expressed are personal.)