I am neither a Kashmiri expert nor have I visited Kashmir extensively, except for site visits at the Chenab Bridge in Jammu and the famous Vaishno Devi temple. However, I have an opinion on Kashmir that I think must be shared with my peers. It is worth noting that many so-called "Kashmiri experts" have never visited Kashmir themselves. I don't know what makes an expert, but I can proudly claim that I am a responsible citizen of this country, unlike many of my friends who neither earn good money nor understand their responsibilities. Setting criticism aside, let's focus on what I want to convey.
When Vajpayee took over as Prime Minister, he brought hope to the Kashmiris. How did he do it? Through dialogue. The Kargil War, parliament attack, plane hijacking, and many other terrorist attacks did not deter him from continuing dialogue with Kashmiris, including separatists and the Pakistani establishment. He knew that until then, Delhi viewed Kashmir and its people's response in black and white, whereas Kashmiris' favorite color was grey. He started the Lahore bus service, which made the Kashmiris cheer. Whenever there is any positive development between Pakistan and India, Kashmiris cheer because they know that their solution lies in peace between India and Pakistan. Vajpayee was a statesman; he continued dialogue with China in 1979 when the Janata government took over, despite the relationship being frozen since the India-China War in 1962. He also visited Pakistan at that time. Vajpayee was a visionary who knew that ego wouldn't take us anywhere. He tried to negotiate with Musharraf, a man who overthrew the elected government of Pakistan, planned an invasion of Indian territory in Kargil, and publicly said many nasty things about India. Still, Vajpayee continued dialogue with him because he knew he wasn't doing it for himself or Pakistan but for the people of Kashmir. Due to this strategy, he was respected in all quarters and was termed by his opposition in Parliament as "Ajatshatru," a man having no enemies. His strategy reduced the number of local militants, and Kashmiris welcomed him at marriage ceremonies—a significant honor, as Kashmiris do not invite "outsiders" to weddings unless they trust them. Vajpayee initiated dialogue with the slogan of "Kashmiriyat, Jamhooriyat, and Insaniyat." The word "Kashmiriyat" drew the attention of Kashmiris because a typical Kashmiri is a very complex character.
Modi, on the other hand, tried his best to follow in Vajpayee's footsteps, but his egoistic nature holds him back, leading to confusing signals about his Pakistan policy. Modi's rise to Prime Minister brought hope to Kashmir, as Kashmiris believed that the last BJP Prime Minister had provided a near-solution to the issue. It should be remembered that in 2014, Manmohan Singh admitted that between 2006 and 2007, Pakistan proposed settling the dispute by accepting the LOC (Line of Control) as the international border, but Manmohan Singh missed that opportunity, following the old Congress tradition of missing crucial moments. This near solution was definitely the result of Vajpayee's long pursuit. When Modi invited Nawaz Sharif to his inauguration ceremony, it was seen as a very positive development in the eyes of Kashmiris. They hoped for a second Vajpayee. However, when India canceled dialogues with Pakistan after the Pakistani High Commissioner met the separatist leader in Delhi, Kashmiris were infuriated. This practice had never been objected to in the past two decades, not even during Vajpayee's BJP government. More than that, India's retaliation in Pakistani style on the international platform worsened the situation. Even Vajpayee faced similar problems but dealt with them smartly, like going public with recorded tapes, putting Pakistan and its officials on the back foot internationally. It seems that Modi's team has failed to realize what Vajpayee did—that he was doing it for Kashmiris, not for himself.
Modi, despite his persona, has always been hindered by his ego. For example, he doesn't talk to journalists he dislikes or holds grudges against. He still acts like a BJP man, contrary to Vajpayee, who took charge as Prime Minister. The solution to Kashmir lies in dialogue, dialogue, and more dialogue. Terrorist attacks will happen more frequently if there is no dialogue, which itself proves that the Pakistani establishment is weaker when it comes to dialogue. They fear that their proxy war will be at a disadvantage. But Modi ignores this because of his ego. The provisions of AFSPA and Article 370 still continue. Modi has an edge to claim the title of a Prime Minister who removed AFSPA because, though Article 370 has some legal hitches, AFSPA can be removed by just an order. This time, with the number of militants not even above 100, AFSPA can be discontinued. Removing AFSPA does not mean removing the Army; it means making the Army accountable for its actions. The Army is never employed to make things peaceful; it is employed to bring a highly disturbed situation to a point where the Civil Administration can take over. There is a huge difference between the training of the Army and Civil Administration. The Army is trained to be result-oriented, whereas the Civil Administration is trained to be procedure-oriented. These two things are wide apart; for example, the Army does not bother about the steps involved in curbing a crime, but it cares whether the crime has been curbed. The Civil Administration, on the other hand, focuses on whether the steps have been followed.
Whatever Modi's intentions may be, it seems that the boldest leader of India today is on the back foot and not truly sincere in solving the Kashmir issue. This is evident from the fact that Modi is busy in UP, while Rajnath has taken over Kashmir. I believe that in Vajpayee's case, things would have been different.
