JETHMALANI IMPLORES GIVE UP "WOODEN HEADEDNESS" Author - VT Joshi

The formation of the Kashmir committee under the eminent lawyer Mr. Ram Jethmlani is a breath of fresh air in the prevailing suffocating political climate. It assumes great significance and gives hope of fresh thinking in the light of the robust views expressed by Jethmlani in a prominent newspaper article almost days before the announcement of the setting up of the committee.

In a refreshingly candid article (Hindustan Times of 20th July) Jethmlani wrote of the "wooden headed" approach to the K-problem of successive governments and political leaders of all hues and colour in the last 55 years, and ardently implored third party mediation (by US and UK) on the Kashmir issue. His terse views and the government's nod, if not acquiescence, in his heading the Kashmir committee, make it imperative to comprehend the full significance of the move by recalling the main thrust of Jethmalani's arguments and suggestions that must sound far too radical to a "diseased" mindset, long fed on jingoistic slogans and puerile promises which can never be fulfilled.

Quoting Barbara Tuchman's famous book March of Folly, Jethmalani calls "wooden headedness" as a form of disease, which no government has escaped except perhaps that of Lal Bahadur Shastri. Whose Tashkent Agreement Jethmalani adores as a "Decree of Permanent Silence Against Pakistan".

In an impassioned plea for a basic change of outlook on the Kashmir issue, Jethmalani's main thesis is that the long succession of political leadership must give up their persistent "disease of wooden headedness", accept the past follies and recognize it to be what it really is - an "international dispute within the UN Charter to which Pakistan is also a party". It has to be resolved in accordance with the charter which emphatically imposes the duty of negotiation on both the parties to the dispute, failing which recourse is to mediation, arbitration etc. under international law. Even the Directive Principles of the Indian Constitution enjoin arbitration upon parties to international disputes for maintaining international peace and security.

The eminent jurist lists as past follies: "The internationalization of the problem by invoking the jurisdiction of the Security Council; a most inopportune armistice preventing the total clean up of the state (of J and K) of raiders and marauders; allowing the problem to get mixed up with the rivalries of the Cold War; the Shimla agreement of 1972, the worst of all agreements; and persistent refusal to understand that the Kashmir dispute is an international dispute".

UNMITIGATED NON-SENSE

He asserts that the problem can be solved but only "statesmen and not myopic politicians" can do this. A bold sifting from clichés and frozen postures is call for. Two misleading clichés need special attention. "Sovereignty is not negotiable, proclaims one. Kashmir is an inseparable part of India, pronounces another. Both are unmitigated non-sense".

Pleading for mediation, Jethmalani observes: "Our allergic aversion to arbitration and mediation is based on the fear that there are no honest arbitrators and mediators in the world. The World situation has materially changed. The Cold War has ended. Now that we are involved as partners with the democratic world in the war against terrorism it is foolish to think that no honest mediators are available. The Americans stopped the Kargil war. Mediation by the US or Britain or both should be welcomed".

It is obvious that Kashmir cries out for a bold initiative to relieve the misery and hardships of its hapless people on both sides of the Line of Control (LOC). What however Jethmalani stops short of suggesting in so many words is that the only practical, feasible, pragmatic solution is the conversion of LOC into an international border which in fact it is but presently only as a sizzling hotline killing innocent lives on both sides.

MYTHS AND REALITY

Willy nilly Kashmir is the biggest stumbling block in the path to normalisation of Indo-Pak relations even if we do not want to call it a "core" issue, and has inevitably come on the international agenda - despite the angry official protests against Collin Powell's recent observations. Plainly the international community is fed up with it as personal conversations with diplomats of various countries reveal.

The contradictory positions of the two countries are so rigid and unrelenting that the problem can never be resolved without urgent third party mediation, indeed effective international pressure which means American pressure in the prevailing global situation. Once bitten twice shy, India has shunned the very word 'mediation' like plague. A statesman of impeccable stature, poor Nelson Mandela, burnt his fingers by innocuously offering to help on behalf of NAM. The opportunity ought to have been seized by India but it was spurned with unbecoming, nasty contempt.

Whether we admit it or not, there is already international intervention and hectic mediation or facilitation by western powers shuttling between New Delhi and Islamabad - though apparently at present only on the "fringe" of the Indo-Pak crisis. These parleys are already something like the "proximity talks" (held in Geneva) under the auspices of the United Nations which eventually led to the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan in the late 1980s'.

EVEN HANDED MEDIATION

Pakistan has long been asking for mediation in the hope that it will be favourable to her position. But the situation has changed so drastically since the end of the cold war, and in view of the recent American stated postures, any mediation can be reasonably expected to be even handed both to India and Pakistan.

It must be noted that no amicable, peaceful solution is possible today or 50 years hence except through the conversion of the LOC as the permanent international border with easy access for interaction between the people of the two parts of Kashmir. Events have proved beyond an iota of doubt that military solution is impossible to achieve by either country while neither will give up what it has nor can ever take over what it does not have. Both countries and their political and military leaders know this full well in their heart of hearts. Yet each side pretends otherwise, and dangles its claim to the other part of Kashmir only as a bargaining chip at the appropriate stage of negotiations - as also to bravely but vainly impress domestic constituencies.

A NATURAL DIVISION

The two parts of Kashmir are admittedly vastly different from each other linguistically, culturally, socially and in several other respects. The LOC is therefore a natural division between the two parts. For all practical purposes it is already an international border though a sizzling hot line at present. It has to be converted into a peaceful, pacific border.

It is a misconception in India that Pakistanis will never accept LOC as the permanent line of demarcation. Common people as well as the large thinking sections will definitely not only welcome but will also appreciate and support such settlement just as the people will in India too - in spite of the initial noisy protests and virulent demonstrations by extremist groups in both the countries. It must be noted that there is in fact a very large thinking section in Pakistan too, and the silent majority in both the countries ardently hope and pray for an amicable end to the bloody impasse.

In the present international milieu a dispassionate reconsideration of the ticklish issues involved and bold initiatives are urgently needed, and the United States and Britain, in particular, can bring about a settlement on the basis of LOC. It is time the pretext of "no-third-party-mediation" is given up, as Jethmalani has pleaded. There is nothing dishonourable in it. In fact it will be in the supreme national interest of both India and Pakistan.

At a recent seminar a discerning observer raised an interesting question: "Suppose Pakistan hands over POK on a platter to India what will you do with it? Can you assure good governance in the prevailing situation of abysmally bad governance in the rest of India?". The hawks had no answer. A similar question, if asked of Pakistani hawks, will also most certainly draw a blank.

It is very significant and extremely important that the Vajpayee government has chosen Mr. Jethmalani to head the Kashmir committee in spite of his known tough views asking the political leaders to give up their "wooden headedness" and pleading for US and UK mediation. It seems to be a welcome realisation and acceptance of the hard ground realities - whatever their public postures.

VT Joshi

16th August, 2002

VT JOSHI (1925-2008) worked for more than fifty years as a journalist. He retired from THE TIMES OF INDIA in 1989. During 1985-89 he was the Special Correspondent of THE TIMES OF INDIA in Pakistan. His books "PAKISTAN: ZIA TO BENAZIR" and "INDIA AT CROSS ROADS" (co-author GG Puri) were widely reviewed in both India and Pakistan.

Website developed and managed by

MF-104, Ajay Towers, E5/1 (Commercial), Arera Colony,
Bhopal - 462016 INDIA

© All Rights Free