Interference? What Interference?

(Edited from Shri Ram Jethmalani's speech in the Rajya Sabha debate on July 31, 2002)

I do not intend to use this occasion for any fault-finding or for recrimination. We are considering aserious subject, which has persisted with us like a festering sore for almost 55 years and unless we stop itin its tracks, some day, it might well prove fatal.

But, from the past, inevitably, we draw some lessons which we must use today, tomorrow and the day after,to find a solution, a lasting solution, to this very, very dangerous problem. When I say that there is animperative need to find a solution of this problem, I have always said that if any Government can find thatsolution, it is a Government in which the BJP has an active participation. If we miss this chance of solvingthis problem, this problem will not be solved for another 25, 30 or 40 years.

The compulsion to solve this problem and find a solution arises not from the international circumstances;it does not arise from Pakistan's machinations; not even from the need to curb terrorism; not even the SimlaAgreement; but it arises out of more compelling factors which I wish to share with this House.

The first is our own declared values and ideologies. The second is the genuine needs, the legitimateexpectations and the tragic frustrations of the inhabitants of that unfortunate State. The third is our ownenlightened self-interest, our own national good, the greatest good of the greatest number, considering theinhabitants of that State as a part of the greater entity, that is, the Indian nation.

I believe that this problem can be solved. It can be solved, but it can only be solved when we give up thefrozen postures and cliches of the last 55 years.

There is some hope. In January this year, I and a friend of mine, organised a conference in Jammu, whereevery element of the political life of the State was present, except, of course, the National Conference, andall the three cultural units of that State were represented.

For two full days, we had a great discussion, and I sat down and recorded at the end of those very vigorousspeeches and debates the consensus that was ultimately evolved at this conference. I conveyed it to the hon.Prime Minister; I conveyed it to the hon. Home Minister

But, my only regret is that it attracted and evoked no response. I want this House to know how much of hopetoday exists. It cannot be denied that the problem of this State is complex and rendered difficult by blundersof the past, and during the last few years, the induction of irrational religious appeals, extreme violenceand terrorism from within and outside the State, the complexity was poignantly reflected in the bewilderingdiversity of views, projected by the speakers.

Fortunately, at the conclusion of the deliberations, unanimity was achieved on the following points. Whenthere was no complete unanimity, it is indicated in the text below.

"1. That future deliberations will not be allowed to be vitiated by violence.

That any future solution will be based on geo-political, cultural, and above all, economic evaluations, andreligious prejudices will be vigorously eschewed.

Basically, the problem is to be resolved by peaceful deliberations, between genuine representatives of theinhabitants of the State and the people of India."

Here, I am incidentally answering a question, which the distinguished Leader of the Opposition put to theGovernment that these coercive methods of diplomacy will not work. But, what is your plan of action?

Here is the plan of action, which I wish to share with the House:

"The first step in hammering out a solution is to identify the genuine representatives of the peopleand their interests. This requires that elections be held in such a manner that they inspire, in every sectionof society, complete confidence in their absolute fairness and regularity. The work of the Election Commissionmay have to be supplemented by the presence of other observers, to be decided by common consent."

I am not talking of international observers, which were referred to in the recent controversy. But, I haveit from the leaders of the Hurriyat, who say that there are people in India, that this problem cannot besolved by parrot-like recitations of moth-eaten cliches and frozen postures of the past fifty years. A boldshift and a paradigm change of attitudes are called for. We must meet in future with the firm belief that asolution exists and rational people can hammer it out.

The Government of India must concentrate on genuine dialogue, rather than destroying local leadershipwithin the State by corruption or character assassination, or both.

That the channels of communication which the Government of India has occasionally tried to create for adialogue with this State have been uniformly inadequate and unhelpful. The Government must do some veryserious thinking about this matter and pay heed to the earlier paragraph of this statement. This applies tothe Leader of the Opposition in India's Parliament, and other leaders as well.

That no-one advanced the theory that the State should automatically become a part of Pakistan because thebusiness of partition of India has to be completed. But there was an argument that accession was limited tothree subjects, and it generated great expectations which have been belied by subsequent events.

Separatist tendencies in some quarters are the result of alienation of the inhabitants. Some State autonomyrequires to be augmented and widened, and genuine irritants which generate a mood of alienation must bespeedily removed. Representatives of Ladakh and Jammu seriously complained of political and, particularly,economic discrimination.

The accession of the State to India was rightly hailed as a triumph of Kashmiriat which is reallythe inspiration of secularism written in the Indian Constitution. Unfortunately, successive administrations inthe State have run themselves on communal lines, making a mockery of our secular pretensions. This distortioncan only be removed by vigorous public opinion and propaganda, finding expression through fair and freeelections.

With the end of violence and terrorism in sight, there is an urgent and a strong case for withdrawal ofrepressive laws from the State, and armed forces from urban centres where occasional untoward incidents arebound to take place from time to time.

Lastly, to leave the matters in no doubt, all were agreed that an honourable and satisfactory solutionwithin the Indian Constitution is possible, and many are agreed that such solution alone would be the rightsolution.

All were agreed that a solution within the Indian Constitution is possible, but some were of the opinionthat that is not the only right solution. In other words, this also is a matter for a peaceful dialogue. Thiswas the position in January.

Last month, I was again in Kashmir. I went to Srinagar and I told my friends there to call the hard-core,all those who have been the enemies of India, active enemies of India, in the past. Believe me, 40 or 50persons assembled. I allowed them to speak.

They spoke with great vigour, with great anger, almost contempt. At the end of it all, I spoke to them forfull 90 minutes. Believe me, Sir, we ended on a happy note, a happy note which involved embracing each other,saying that a solution can be found, and we will find it, Inshah Allah!

The suggestion that was mooted was, kindly find 5 or 6 more persons in India with whom we could sit andtalk. I assure you, this is a great sign of hope that even the people in the PoK have come to know that thisis the kind of talks that are taking place between some people.

Yesterday -- I don't know; I have not yet talked to Shabbir Shah -- he made a statement that he hadreceived a communication even from the PoK leaders saying, "We want a dialogue of this kind to takeplace, people to people. We are prepared to come to Delhi, or, we will invite you to that place and come andtalk to us". This is the hope.

One of the persons, as I said, is a rabid, violent, enemy of India. After great reasoning, after a very,very intelligent and rational dialogue with him, you will be surprised to know what he said to me. I am notsure whether I translated his words accurately. But this is what he said. He says,

"The circumstances that you have pointed out...all these circumstances create a bond of affection withIndia. But the people of India must realise that we threw our lot with India in the hope that we will reap thebenefit of Indian democracy and liberal vision of its enlightened leaders. These expectations have,unfortunately, been frustrated. Political power has almost continuously become a dynastic preserve ormonopoly. The present Government is corrupt and there is no development of any kind. The frustrated youth hastaken to the gun. I want my Indian friends to realise that terrorism may have been instigated and evenfinanced, on a large scale, by Pakistan, yet Pakistan could not have succeeded, without the widespreaddisillusionment of the people, the symptoms of which you will find on the unhappy face of everyKashmiri".

This is the prevalent mood, and I want that any future plan of action that you formulate must be based onthis ray of hope, that there are people who, once upon a time, were our enemies and indulged in violence, and,today, they are prepared to say, "We are prepared to sit across the table. Please enter into a rationaldialogue with us; we are ready."

As I said, a solution exists. Everybody has realised the futility of war; everybody has realised that theKashmir issue is bleeding us financially and economically, and is causing an injury which we cannot possiblyafford.

What is more, a favourable development has taken place -- I don't claim this as the credit point for thisGovernment; those who want to give credit to the Government could do so; but I don't necessarily claim it forthem -- it is that Pakistan's erstwhile allies are now our friends and partners in the war against terrorism.

Pakistan's main prop of intransigence has, substantially, weakened, if not actually vanished. Only theother day, the All India Muslim Majlis Mushavarat, headed by Syed Shahabuddin, issued a public statement,after talking to various elements in the public life of Jammu and Kashmir, that we see in Jammu and Kashmir,today, normalcy, to some extent, is returning, and there is a hope for settlement and there is a hope for apeaceful dialogue.

This is not my assessment; this is the assessment of Syed Shahabuddin and many of his colleagues who wentto Jammu and Kashmir. But, when you open a dialogue, that dialogue has to be sincere. I would like to statehere -- the other day, my friend, Dr. Manmohan Singh read that article; I am glad he read -- what the greatauthority on international law, Oppenheim, says, "Whenever you are bound to carry on negotiations underthe United Nations' Charter, sort out all your international disputes which might, one day, lead to war.Sincerity in the negotiation is a very, very important component."

We have been telling all the American visitors, statesmen, President, "Please pressure Pakistan tostop this cross border terrorism". We have been telling them to apply sanctions on Pakistan. Nobody inthe United States has said, "This is interference in our affairs. After all, we are entitled to conductour foreign policy in any manner we like. Why is India interfering"?

These are things which must happen in international intercourse, and if a friendly power, or arepresentative of a friendly power comes here and says, "To make elections look free and fair to thewhole world and the international community...

What I am saying is that you must not treat this as interference and we should not... Indian citizens havegone to Bangladesh to oversee Bangladesh elections.

We will promise free and fair elections to the whole world and to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but onone condition. The condition will be that any dispensation in that State will always be a democraticdispensation, based on human rights, equality of all ethnic and religious groups, and complete security,honour and dignity of the Pundits who have been thrown out of that State and who are living as refugees. Theymust be rehabilitated.

That is the test of the genuineness of the intentions, and we must tell the whole world that democraticarguments like free and fair elections will not be allowed to be used by dictators who do not have democracyin their own countries and who do not have secularism in their own country.