We reproduce here the excerpts of a detailed interview with Sh. Bal Raj Puri. A veteran journalist and political thinker Sh. Balraj Puri has been one of the champions of regional autonomy. He was made the Working  Chairman of the Regional Autonomy Committee when the National Conference assumed reins of the state in its latest stint. In intriguing circumstances his term as the working chairman of RAC was allowed to expire and his report on regional autonomy shelved.

Q: Kargil Intrusion has almost provoked a full-scale war between India and Pakistan. How do you view the entire intrusion and the Indian responses?

A: This argument that we were taken unawares has been put forward in 1947 as well as 1965. It only reflects that our antennae are not strong enough to catch the proper signals. We have not been able to see through the wider developments for last few years. Kargil is fallout of these developments.

Q: Which wider developments are you talking about?

A: Militancy in Valley reached its plateau in recent times. Scope of its continuance became less as the so called pro-Kashmiriyat and pro-Independence militant groups started getting less support from Pakistan. As such local recruitment of militants started declining and this development tended to create a vacuum which was not positively harnessed. Pakistan developed a compulsion for creating trouble in non-Kashmiri areas of the state for converting the Kashmiri militant movement into a pro-Muslim and pro-Pakistan movement. It was in pursuance of this approach Pakistan created trouble in Kargil. However, there were other subtler developments, which were also ignored.

Q: What were these other subtler developments?

A: Some time back Pakistani Foreign Minister said which was widely reported, that Pakistan was ready to modify its stand. He declared that Pakistan supports a district wise plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir, which by implication meant that Bhudhist and Hindu areas have to be separated. Along with this significant development, proposals for the division of the state more or less on communal lines started to be voiced from America like ‘autonomy within, India’, ‘Sovereignty without International personality’, etc etc. Then a strange coincidence happened. The ruling National Conference government presented its regional autonomy report which also by implication seeks to divide Jammu and Kashmir on communal lines. Even some Hindu leaders perhaps out of desperation or anger started voicing demands for division of the state. I feel that in light of these developments Pakistan has succeeded in involving the non-Kashmiri areas of the state. It is also worth noting that there has been very little resentment among Kashmiri Muslims on what

Pakistan has done with Kargil Muslims. Even in National Conference, except Dr Farooq Abdullah, the reaction has been subdued. It means that a situation has developed in Valley where even liberal and moderate voices could not afford to take a line which is against Pakistan.

Q: How do you compare the situation in Kashmir and Kargil?

A: There is a distinct difference between the militant movement in Kashmir and that in Kargil. In Kashmir the youth, for right or wrong reasons, went to Pakistan, got training there. Kashmir militancy had a pronounced local involvement inspite of the fact that locals got training, arms, financial support, as well as moral political and diplomatic support from Pakistan. This is not the case in Kargil. The local youth are not involved in militancy. Everybody has come from outside along with Pakistani Army and Talibaan. It is even factually incorrect to call intruders in Kargil as freedom fighters. However, the new trends in Kashmir valley reveal that the secessionist movement there has now come under the total control of Pakistan.

Q: What should be done after Kargil intrusion is evacuated totally?

A: People say that what is the big deal if we have got back our own areas. I feel we have to consolidate our gains. We have always frittered away the gains in the past. In 1947 we failed to take advantage of the local anger against Pakistani invasion and within 5 or 6 years we were back to square one. About the events in 1947 many believe that if Pakistan would not have attacked, Kashmir would not have become part of India. There is no doubt that Sheikh Abdullah was more inclined towards India than Pakistan. May be because of his relations with Nehru and Gandhi.  But it was Sheikh Abdullah who himself told me that had there been friendship between him and Maharaja Hari Singh there was no need to accede to India and ‘Independence’ of the state would have been a reality.  Sheikh was inclined towards India but the people’s real support for India came when Pakistan attacked Kashmir. Moral and political justification for accession of Kashmir with India was in fact provided by Pakistan. Similarly after 1965 the way Kashmir was integrated with India by erosion of its autonomy, frittered away the gains made during 65 war. From 1971 onwards, for next twenty years secessionist movement in Kashmir disappeared as we talked to people’s representatives. There was accord with Sheikh Abdullah. However, in the later phases when elected governments were dismissed and avenues of popular protest scuttled we again had a difficult situation at hand. Now we should not commit the same mistakes.

Q: What should be specifically done now?

A: We should not be as much concerned about what Pakistan wants to do as we should be about what we have to do. Our concern should be to build relations with Shias of Kargil and Budhists in Leh. Nowadays everybody talks about defence, intelligence and Pakistan. Nobody talks about the people of Kargil. How they are suffering and what we can do about it’ Sonia Gandhi declared a committee for Kargil relief. It is a good step. Everybody should come forward for this cause.

Q: What is the foll-out of Kargil events in Kashmir and what should be done there?

A: There will be increased isolation of Kashmir. The moral responsibility, which many in India were nurturing towards Kashmiris for the wrongs done to them over the years, may not have the same feelings towards Kashmiris after what has happened in Kargil. You must be remembering that till 1965, Jay Prakash Narayan used to say that India should fulfil its promises made to people of Kashmir. He also advocated friendship with Pakistan. The same JP said after 1965 war that Pakistan has ceased to be a party on the

Kashmir issue because they used force.  The present day liberal forces in India who are political children of JP have similar feelings now after Pakistani intrusion in Kashmir. The support for genuine aspirations of Kashmiris within the liberal groups in India is going to be effected a lot. Even the international support for Kashmiris is going to decline now. Kashmiris are in confusion now. It provides us a chance. They need to be shown a new path. Initiative has to be taken by Indian leadership, intelligentsia and the government.

It is time Kashmiris are reminded of their culture, tradition and history. Culture is the only area where Kashmiri Muslims have pride in their pre-Islamic history.

Q: What should be done to make Kashmiris conscious of their past?

A: India has not done justice to the cultural of Kashmir. Lal Ded and Nund Reshi were never given the due status in the Indian pantheon of Saints like Guru Nanak, Kabir, Chaitanya etc. There is need of a sophisticated analyses to descriminate between Kashmiri aspirations which are genuine and those which are communal aspirations. Kashmiri Pandits represent the intellectual content of the 5000 yr. old historical identity of Kashmir. This has to be recognized. Kashmiri Pandits and Kashmiri Muslims should talk to each other. I do not mean talks with militants but saner elements. But we have to be cautious not to write off an entire community. Sometimes a particular mood dominates a society but that should not be the basis of judging the attitude of the entire community. See what happened in Bengal. In 1947 Bengali Muslims went with Pakistan. But that mood soon faded and Bangladesh separated. Today we have national anthem of Bangladesh written by Tagore. We also should be cautious of not condemning whole of Pakistan. We would say shame to government of Pakistan and not shame to Pakistan. In Pakistan lies our past as well. Mohanjo Daro is there. Vedas have been written there. Let us avoid sweeping generalizations.

Q: You were unceremoniously relieved of your responsibility as the Working Chairman of Regional Autonomy Committee. What happened?

A: I do not know what happened and why they removed me. In the entire Regional Autonomy Committee most of the members were from the ruling party.

If there had been differences with my approach they could have easily voted my view out. It is unprecedented that in a democratic and civilized polity, the head of a committee submits a report which is retrospectively dismissed even without a discussion. I was told on 21st January 1999 that my term had expired on 31 Dec, 1998. Rest of the committee continued. New report was brought out and my report was shelved.

Q: What are your objections to the new report?

A: The new report is anti-regional autonomy. This report has not recognized the existing regions. Present regions particularly Ladakh and Jammu have been broken. Size of region has been reduced so that central government of state will become stronger. The voice which six districts of Jammu could assert cannot be done by a single district of say Doda. The report is a step towards centralization. There is not any mention in this report about the devolution of power and sharing of economic power. The report only gives an impression that the government does not want to give power to regions but wants to weaken regional identity.

Q: You are on record having experienced the same treatment in the past on the same issue. Why does it happen again and again?

A: Perhaps there is a reluctance to share power when you are in power. I was promised in 1952, then in 1968 and many times since then. In 1968 the draft presented by me was not only accepted by Sheikh Abdullah but the entire Kashmiri Muslim leadership including Jamat-i-Islami, Awami Action Committee, Political Conference of Sh GM Karra and others. Subsequently I was told that Sheikh Abdulla’s commitment was not a binding on Kashmiris. Even if it is the logic that only Sheikh committed to me and hence was not a binding on people of Kashmir, then by the same logic even people of India are not committed to uphold promises made by Nehru to people of Kashmir. My experience is that every Chief Minister before assuming power and after being out of power talks about regional autonomy.

Q: You have seen the political events since independence in the state. Why has the non-Kashmiri leadership failed to emerge in the state?

A: Leadership emerges through recognition. Kashmir name has dominated the entire gamut of issues involving Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmir. Problem of entire state is known as the problem of Kashmir. Population of Kashmir is 52%, out of which 10% are those who are non-Kashmiri-speaking. This 42% Kashmiri speaking population also comprises Kashmiri Pandits and Kashmiri Sikhs. Kashmiri Muslim population must not be more than 35%. But it has enjoyed almost total power. Each party in Delhi has nourished Kashmiri precedence. How can alternate leadership emerge. Once YB Chavan asked me as to what was the alternative to regional autonomy. I told him that after every 25 years the state should have a non-Kashmiri Chief Minister. Even if he is a Jammu Muslims I don’t mind.

Q: You attended the peace conference at Hague what are your impressions about the entire conference?