When asked about what US policy should be towards Panamanian independence, the former California Senator S. Hayakawa replied, “There is no reason for a policy – we stole it fair and square”. The Kashmir problem is different, and the history of its peoples more unfortunate. The complexity of the one people two-nation formula that was Partition, and the strategic location of Kashmir, led to demands from both India and Pakistan for its ownership. The only way out is a plebiscite, a formula proposed first by India, and as early as Nov. 1947. Unfortunately, the much promised referendum has not been held and the tragedy of Kashmir has slowly unfolded over the last fifty years.

Prime Minister Vajpayee, and his BJP government, deserve everybody's support for their efforts to bring about a lasting peace. More than any other government on either side of the border, this government has expended genuine effort, and desire, to reach an agreement supported by all the involved peoples - the Kashmiris, Indians and Pakistanis.

According to many, and myself, the truly genuine achievement of India is its democracy. It was an experiment which everybody (except Indians) expected to fail. Today only rogue countries do not have some semblance of democracy; in 1947, the non-Indian intellectual elites were arguing that authoritarianism was the answer to political, and economic development. India chose to follow its tryst with destiny and let the world do the following.

That was then; today is another occasion for India to demonstrate its true spirit - the spirit of secularism, of valuing freedom, of democracy - even if it means the "verdict" goes against you. The concerned area is the Vale of Kashmir, excluding Jammu and Ladakh, but including the entire area (under both India and Pakistan rule) that is under dispute. What kind of agreements are likely to succeed ?

Most Indian attempts to "solve" the dispute have entailed treating Kashmir as a separate, and more than equal, part of India. The BJP, correctly, has consistently opposed a special status for Kashmir. In this regard, the present attempts towards "regional autonomy" are of the special status variety - and equally likely to fail for that reason.

If not special status, then there are only two possible options - either Kashmir is a part of India, with equal to other states status, or it is not a part of India. Who should decide? Why, the people of Kashmir, who else? But can true freedom be exercised under the threat of violence and terror? Of course not. But the possibility of a referendum sans terror is likely to garner considerable international support. If India, Pakistan and Kashmir agree to the principle of free choice - which entails being independent as well as the choice of being part of India or Pakistan - then they have to work together to ensure that there is free choice. Towards that goal, a suitable time can be chosen - say August 2001 or August 2002 - for free and fair elections. Till that time there is a cease- fire, agreed to by all parties to the conflict, and ground peace ensured by an international force. The UN is expected to be present from cease-fire till the day of the plebiscite and some time after. This was stated explicitly by Pandit Nehru in 1951: "We have always, right from the beginning, accepted the idea of the Kashmir people deciding their fate by referendum or plebiscite. In fact, this was our proposal long before the United Nations came into the picture."

Why is this simple choice model, consistent with Indian beliefs and values, not being universally advocated? For two important reasons. First, there are some who believe that Kashmir should remain a part of India for geo-political strategic reasons. This was likely a major factor in India retaining Kashmir in 1947. But the world has changed since then, and the possibility of any area in the world serving an important military purpose is questionable. Variants of the strategic hypothesis were attempted by the British vis-a -vis Ireland, the Pakistanis vis-à-vis Bangladesh, the Israelis vis-à-vis Palestine, the Americans in Viet-Nam, and by the Sri Lankans in Jaffna. The strategic argument is, well, history.

The second reason for reluctance is deeper and potent, especially when argued in its reductio ad absurdum form. The argument runs as follows: Choice, and plebiscite, is not the solution because unfettered freedom spells Balkanization. Each woman can be an island, so why not an infinite number of countries within India ? Or what about Chattisgarh, or even Punjab ? Should there be a plebiscite there as well ? And what if Tamil Nadu wants to join Jaffna ? Where does all this end?

There are four reasons why the domino effect (also argued unsuccessfully by America when it attempted to go against the march of history, and freedom, in Vietnam) is unlikely to even be a possibility. First, what is the freedom these states will be fighting for, and what popular appeal would they have? India is democratic, and each citizen has all the rights she needs. So the argument of more freedom is hollow. Second, there is the simple matter of the history of geography. While borders are inevitable, the principle of contiguity is well recognized e.g. it was not likely that Hyderabad as a separate country would have succeeded. This argument rules out all but the border states from exercising choice in any meaningful sense. The third reason is economic and perhaps even more potent. All the regions of India are in deep debt to the center, and it is unlikely that their passion for freedom, especially in highly democratic India, will have popular support - especially if the no-nonsense principle of payment before dissension is implemented.

The fourth reason is history. Apart from the disintegration of the Soviet Union (caused by the integration of freedom) , most changes have been towards unification, creation of a larger economic and political entity. European parliament, the euro, the European Central bank i.e. nation states willingly conceding narrow power for the larger common good. Even the Koreas are talking as are the Chinas. Germany unified a decade ago.

The above four reasons do not rule out the possibility of some states of India wanting a divorce, and obtaining it via a plebiscite. That possibility should be confronted with strength and pride. There are Tamilians everywhere in India (and the world) as are the Sikhs, and the Bengalis, and the Goans, and the....When we meet each other, we meet as Indians, much like a New Yorker meeting a Californian. Nobody talks about the US disintegrating, or France, or England. Nobody even thinks it is possible. Nor is it thought that the secession of Quebec would mean the disintegration of Canada. So why should any break-up of India be even considered a possibility?

India, and the sub-continent, will only emerge stronger if a plebiscite in Kashmir is allowed. In a broadcast to the nation on 3rd November 1947, Pandit Nehru said: " We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir but also to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it".

The dividends of peace for India and Pakistan will be huge. We are two nations, but one people. Kashmir can choose to go its own way. Let it experiment with it's own tryst with destiny. It is the right objective to work towards. And why it is a very Indian objective is explored in next week's companion article, Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani.