NEW DELHI: Dr.Karan Singh, whose offer lo talk to the militans him to center stage of Kashmir “politics” once again, says that he has a “very clear” idea of how to approach the Kashmir. Problem but would not like to spell it out at this stage. “I will spell it out later right now what is more important is to start the process of reconciliation,” he said talking to The Hindu a South Indian daily here today.
However, he gave sufficient, indication of his thinking, some of which would appear to be at odds with the Government’s position; He is strongly of the opinion that no solution is possible without talking to the people of Kashmir, including those in the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, More important, he favors a dialogue with the “new forces in Jammu and Kashmir.”
Asked to define these forces, he mentioned the All-party Hurriyat Conference. “By new forces | don’t mean the militants but certainly we can talk to the Hurriyat which is an over ground party,” he said emphasizing the need to replace the “dialogue of the deaf” with a real dialogue.
Dr.Singh warmed that the longer a serious attempt to resolve the problem was delayed the greater was the danger of third party intervention. Two things must be recognized at the outset that mir dispute” a party to it if Kashmir’s a to India was a historical fact, it was also a historical fact that there was a dispute.
Dr.Singh repeatedly criticized the view that India should not talk to Pakistan and said that such a view flew in the face of facts. To say that we should not talk to Pakistan or that there is no dispute is unhistorical. All you have to do is to look at Paragraph six of the Shimla Agreement which speaks of a final settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir problem and envisages bilateral talks to settle it,” he pointed out quoting “para six,”
Though clearly disappointed that the Government did not accept his offer to talk to the militants, Dr.Singh denied that he was “bitter.” He had done his duty and if the other side had not responded so be it.
He said the present situation was a “disaster whichever way you look at it.” The impasse created by the siege was only a culmination of four years of tumult and turmoil” and it was absolutely necessary to start doing “something about it.”
“The siege is only a manifestation of a larger problem and we should not get bogged down in it. What I am interested in is the more basic thing the Kashmir dispute,” he said urging maximum restraint to deal with the militants inside the shrine.
Article extracted from this publication >> November 19, 1993
