I guess our intellectual social activists have a tendency to speak on issues too much when silence is best; to utter words that create controversy rather than set people cogitate on the issue. Prashant Bhushan, a senior Supreme Court Advocate, a social activist and now a prominent member of Team Anna, has now created a controversy by his statement on the Kashmir issue that "The Indian Army should be withdrawn from J&K and if the Kashmiri people did not want to live with India, they should be granted freedom through a plebiscite."

Plebiscite after a good 63 years and after the Simla Agreement signed following the Bangladesh War on July 2, 1972, which distinctly had an anti multilateralist clause to keep the United Nations out of any post - war diplomacy and resolved to settle their (India's and Pakistan's) differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations between them is unthinkable and suicidal. Under this clause, Pakistan is barred from seeking assistance from any forum, including the United Nations. Under this agreement the previous cease - fire line was transformed into a “more permanent” Line Of Control that we read and hear these days in newspapers, speeches and TV channels. Therefore, where is the question of offering a plebiscite to J & K, though India's representatives had promised the Security Council a plebiscite to ratify the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja of J & K on Oct. 26, 1947? And this promise was subject to the condition that insurgents and Pak may vacate PoK. The “Lion of Kashmir” Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah was with Nehru and was opposed to the accession of Kashmir to Pakistan.

Plebiscite demand by Pakistan [not by the separatists] based on India's promise at the United Nations had no substance because, I think, under Resolution 726 of UN, there was a precondition to hold plebiscite: India to reduce its forces in Kashmir "to the minimum strength required" (depending on perception) for maintaining law and order and Pakistan to withdraw insurgents [from Pakistan occupied Kashmir]. Neither Pakistan nor India seemed to have complied with these preconditions and naturally, no plebiscite was possible.

That being so, after the Simla Agreement, the said UN resolution too has become infructuous and as good as a dead letter. Therefore, what is Prashant Bhushan talking about? Was he not beating a dead horse?

In a federal system of a nation, plebiscite is a most dangerous means to ascertain people's wishes to either stay with the Federation or to separate. We must remember that the US President Abraham Lincoln did not hesitate to wage a civil war to fight the secessionist Southerners and today we have a most powerful United States of America, the numerouno power of the world. If India were to accept Prashant Bhushan's idea, which he has every right to express, tomorrow Tamils will ask for a plebiscite and who knows, the idea will snowball and the days of Balkanisation of already truncated India would be at the threshold of our government.

People of name and fame, especially leaders like Prashant Bhushan, should be as cautious and responsible as one who walks on the razor's edge. After all, ordinary mortals always listen to and imitate their Gurus and Netas.

As we know, J&K is one State which is always on the boil. Pakistan wants it whole, so has been working on inflicting a thousand cuts — wounds — on India. It has already got one-third of Kashmir (PoK) and India has not been able to dislodge the Pak from there. Of what India has, there are separatist groups — Hurriyat — amongst whom there are moderates and hard-liners. There could be groups supporting Pakistan as well.

After the Simla Agreement, the two countries have no choice but to sit across the table and negotiate, engage themselves in a dialogue. The UN is finally out of the Indo-Pak radar. Both being nuclear powers, war is out of question, unless they want to commit harakiri. For now, Pakistan to keep what it has got — PoK and India to keep what is left of J&K. A peculiar case of win - win or lose - lose situation! And even here, India has problems. Let us also not forget, "The Kashmir dispute touched on the very foundation of the India State as a SECULAR nation."

It is for this reason the Union Government (UPA) appointed three Interlocutors on J&K after an all-party meeting to address all issues pertaining to the State. The report was handed over recently to the Home Minister P. Chidambaram. Why then, at this sensitive point of time, Prashant Bhushan should open his mouth and make that controversial statement? Difficult to divine.

Tailpiece:
Here is a gem on the internet:
An ingenious example of speech occurred recently in the United Nations Assembly that made the world community smile. A representative from India began:

"Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Rishi (Sage) Kashyap of Kashmir, after whom Kashmir is named. When Rishi Kashyap struck a rock and it brought forth water, he thought, ' What a good opportunity to have bath.' He took off his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water. When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished. A Pakistani had stolen them."

The Pakistani representative jumped up furiously and in support of Pakistan, he shouted, "What are you talking about? The Pakistanis weren't there then."

The Indian representative smiled and said, "And now that we have made that clear, I will begin my speech saying that Kashmir has been an integral part of India all along."