ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Interview/C Subramaniam

'A neutral mediator for Kashmir is the best thing so that a solution can be found'

Bharat Ratna C Subramaniam, who raised the issue of having a neutral mediator between India and Pakistan to discuss the intractable issue of Kashmir, explains his stand, in an interview with Shobha Warrier in Madras.

Does Kashmir actually belong to India?

Yes. That is our claim. Because legally at that time (the time of Independence) the princes were given the freedom to join either India or Pakistan. Their decision was final. And, the Maharaja of Kashmir did accede to India. That is a fact. Then it had the sanction of the people also through their acknowledged leader, Sheikh Abdullah.

After we got Independence, Pakistan attacked Kashmir and Hari Singh, the Maharaja, asked for India's help. India helped Kashmir on the condition that Kashmir should join India. Is it not true?

Yes, otherwise, how do we enter another country?

So, do you feel if Pakistan had not attacked, Kashmir would have automatically gone the other way, as it was a Muslim majority country?

Not necessarily. It was the decision of the ruler of the time. So, his decision would have been final according to the law enunciated by Parliament, the British parliament.

Do you feel if there was a referendum then, the people of Kashmir would have preferred Pakistan?

Might be. It is all guesswork. Yes, Kashmir is a Muslim-dominated area. The problem now also is that Kashmir has a predominant Muslim majority. But when we say Kashmir, we do not recognise certain regions. For example, Jammu ruled by Rajputs had always been a part of India and then Ladakh, which is completely Buddhist. Then as far as the valley, the PoK, are concerned, there are differences. One, the language of the Muslims of the valley is Kashmiri and not Urdu. They do not follow the traditional Muslim religion but Sufism, a little different and more modernised. Then there are Urdu-speaking Punjabi Muslims there. So, to find a solution, these four regional aspects will have to be kept in mind.

I have said it in my letter to I K Gujral, in any event, that Jammu and Ladakh cannot go to Pakistan. So, it is question of what happens to the valley, the two portions: PoK and the rest of the Kashmir valley as such.

Can I ask you something more about what had happened after Partition? Why did Nehru and Krishna Menon take the Kashmir problem to the UN?

Because the UN had just come about and they had the grant idea that international disputes should be settled at the UN level and there should be no war. It is that idealistic approach which induced Panditji to take it to the UN. In retrospect, however, that was not a wise decision.

Was Sardar Patel against the decision?

Yes, Patel was against the decision.

There is talk that Nehru wanted Kashmir as part of India because it was his home state.

That is the least important factor. Kashmir was part of the whole of India and where it should go was decided on the basis of the formula evolved by Britain. The princes were given the freedom to choose.

Now, after all these years of terrorism and violence, don't you feel we should give the people of the region the right to choose where they want to be?

That is why I am saying, we have to find out a formula with regard to the valley which is in our possession, and the portion of the valley which is in the Pakistani possession. This is where some formula should be found out. My own view is they would opt for independence. They wouldn't like to be in India or Pakistan.

It is true that they should have a right to choose. But our stand is, there have been elections all along and they have voted for the Congress and the Congress government has been there. But all that apart, there is a dispute. Then, how do we settle it? That is why I have given various choices.

1. Recognise the Line of Control as the international boundary, subject to any adjustments proposed by an independent Boundary Commission to make the boundary rational.
2. Hold a referendum under UN auspices only in the valley on both sides of the Line of Control, keeping Jammu and Ladakh outside its purview with the consent of Pakistan in view of their patent ethnic and religious composition.
3. Refer the dispute to a mutually acceptable body for international arbitration.
4. Seek the discreet good offices of neutral and disinterested nations to come up with a modus operandi.

Out of this, perhaps the neutral, third party intervention may be necessary to bring about a solution.

Why are we so scared of a third party intervening in the Kashmir problem? When Nelson Mandela offered to help, there was such a lot of hue and cry here.

There are other internal problems here. Suppose the north-east claims the same thing? Or, Punjab claims the same thing? What will happen then? It might create a bad precedent. That is why I have divided the region into four areas and suggested solutions to the dispute. I feel a neutral mediator is the best thing so that a solution can be formed.

The politicians are scared because if any party yields to this, the other Opposition will cry hoarse that they have betrayed the country. So, politicians can't find a solution.

Then, who can solve the problem?

This is where a mediator is important.

Who should sit with the mediator?

We can talk to the political parties on both the sides. Perhaps talk to leading persons in both places.

Do you see anybody who can be a negotiator in this?

Mandela, former American President Jimmy Carter -- there are quite a number of people who can guide us.

Do you see any particular political party, which is open to this suggestion?

We have to talk to all the political parties.

Don't you think all these political parties will try to turn this problem to their advantage?

Yes, that is why any party in power has to take a decision. And when they take a decision, all the other parties will cry hoarse.

Do you foresee any change in the situation? We have been losing so many lives, we have been spending so much money but all the political parties are selfish in their interests.

Wisdom should come at least now. Let us find a permanent solution so that we need not carry on this dispute not only now but leave it to coming generations also.

Kashmir had always been a problem to both India and Pakistan. Immediately after Independence did any leader think of holding a referendum there?

Pandit Nehru wanted to find a solution very badly. Perhaps they had in mind to rationalise the Line of Control to be the new international boundary.

Was he hopeful then?

Yes, he wanted to start the process of consultation. That is why he sent Sheikh Abdullah to Pakistan.

When did you start thinking that there should be a third party mediator to solve the problem?

I had been saying this for the last five years. We did not think on this line soon after Independence because the situation was not so bad. Now we should see the situation in retrospect. We have to analyse our losses and gains, how much we have lost in manpower, how much we have lost in materials, can it or should it continue like this, etc etc.

As a matter of fact, I have mentioned this in my book, Hand of Destiny quoting Jawaharlal's statement. It is not a new idea that I am throwing out, I have been saying this for quite some time.

You might have talked to the government in power five years ago when you had this idea.

Yes, I did.

What was their response?

Nobody was prepared to bell the cat.

Even Gujral?

Even Gujral.

Kashmir has always been a burden on India, has it not?

It is quite obvious. That is why I am giving these suggestions. Another formula that I have is, we can nominate distinguished academicians, retired generals, scientists, retired chief justices, etc who have no connection with politics as such. The same way Pakistan also can nominate an equal number of people. Let these two groups sit together, discuss, and try to find a formula, which is acceptable to both sides.

Who is more rigid, India or Pakistan?

Both are rigid. They want the whole of Kashmir. We say, no. So, it is like one taking one position and the other taking the opposite position.

Whenever we have some bilateral talks, India says, we will discuss anything other than Kashmir. Is this a right attitude?

No, Kashmir is the thing that we should discuss. Even the Simla Agreement says, we should decide by discussion. The way in which we are dealing, we are not able to find a solution. The two governments sitting together to find a solution will never happen.

You talked about the need to have public debates on this.

Yes, only through debates, can public opinion be mobilised so that in both the countries, we see some sense.

How will we be able to mobilise public opinion?

We can have discussions by the intelligentsia in newspapers, magazines, All India Radio, television channels, etc so that the public may participate and come to an opinion.

Are the politicians not responsible for portraying Pakistan as our enemy?

Yes, that is why politicians can't come to a decision. It has to be decided by other people.

But are the politicians not aggravating the problem for their own gain?

It is quite obvious. But there is no point in me saying that. I came out with the formula with all these things in mind. There are many instances in the world where what were considered as insoluble problems, are solved. Therefore, this also should, and could be solved. Politicians are afraid that any government yielding on this will be voted out in the next election. So, public opinion should be created and the public should put pressure on the government. Then they will feel that they have the support of the people.

EARLIER REPORT:
C Subramaniam advocates mediation by neutral country in Indo-Pak dispute

The Rediff Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview