Bull's Eye

There is nothing sacrosanct about the unity of Jammu and Kashmir. Historical circumstance enabled the Dogra rulers to join diverse territories into one kingdom. When Britain quit India, the princely states were given the option to remain independent. Had they all opted for independence it would have ruined India. Sardar Patel prevented that from happening. But he did not take any initiative on Kashmir. Why?

With its composite culture and contiguity to both India and Pakistan, Kashmir was a case apart. Left to himself, wouldn't Maharaja Hari Singh have sought independence? Dr Karan Singh should know. But the invasion by Pakistan forced the Maharaja's hand. Was that why Nehru made Kashmir's accession to India conditional? In the Instrument of Accession, he introduced a clause making the accession subject to approval by the people of Kashmir. That clause facilitated a reference to plebiscite in the UN resolutions.

Today it is unthinkable for people in Jammu and Ladakh to opt out of India. But can the same be said for people in the Valley? Fifty years of a fraudulent democracy have put the answer in doubt. If the Valley could experience genuine democracy for five years, chances are overwhelming that its people would opt for India.

That is why this column has repeatedly stressed that only by undoing Partition would the Kashmir dispute be resolved. Had Indian leaders accepted Britain's Cabinet Mission Plan, wouldn't our history and mindsets be different?

Now India and Pakistan must forget the past. They must focus on current realities. People want self-rule. They want peace. A SAARC confederation can ensure that. Once a confederation is accepted in principle, self-determination for the five segments of India-held and Pakistan-held Kashmir becomes feasible. India and Pakistan should first discuss the modalities of a confederation, then talk about Kashmir.

A paradise on earth
Became hellish strife-
Time now for rebirth
Of its second life!