Interview to Khushwant Singh By Paolo Pietrosanti and Ignazio Marcozzi-Rozzi

Khushwant Singh was born in 1915; he is one of the most eminent personality in the cultural panorama of India in the current century.Writer, historian, journalist, former lawyer and former diplomat, former MP, he has published several dozens of books and essaies.Singh is a Sikh. He has been fighting in favour of a united and secular Indian state, and against any fundamentalism. Because of it he was sentenced to death by Sikh fundamentalists.

P. This is Radio Radicale and we have the honour to be with Mr. Khushwant Singh who is one of the most popular, important, and well known men of culture in India. He is in Italy and we are really happy and honoured to speak with him. The first question is not so intelligent, I'm afraid, but we would like to allow listeners to know synthetically, if possible, although it is not so easy to synthesize such an important and long life, something about you.

S. I am 83 years old, I came to Italy the first time in 1934, 62 years ago as a student. I've been here many times because as students we used to travel by Italian ships from Bombay to Genoa, or Bombay to Venice, and then take the train to England. So my association with Italy is very long and in some ways it has been very constructive because I came again on holidays and then I was here on a delegation with UNESCO and I spent nearly one month in Florence and travelled all over Italy by car with my wife. Then, when I gave up the foreign service, I took to writing. I came to Italy because I love the lakes, I find Italian lakes one of the most beautiful places in the world. I have never seen more beautiful lakes. I spent some months on the Lago Maggiore, and then I found a tiny little lake above the Maggiore, called lago Ilio, where I wrote the draft of the first novel I ever published called "Train to Pakistan" which has now come out in an Italian edition. And this is what took me to Rome this time, the rele

ase of this novel. So I have a lot of affection for this country because in many ways my creative god is connected with Italy. I deliberately didn't pick up Italian, although I'm very quick in picking up languages, but if I had learned Italian I wouldn't have done my work. So I deprived myself of this pleasure just to enjoy that of looking at the people and write in English, which is what I do. So my association is both emotional and intellectual, creative I should like to say.

P. Your book "Quel treno per il Pakistan", which has now been issued by Marsilio also in Italian, talks about a very dramatic period in the history of India, a period in which the contradiction between violence and other possible options for human beings was very evident. In this framework, what do you remember about Gandhi?

S. Well, I was in Lahore, which is now in Pakistan, and when the division came in August 1947 I had no option, I had to get up, because they were driving all non-Muslims out of Pakistan and, likewise, the Hindus and Sikhs were driving Muslims from Punjab, a part of India, into Pakistan so there was an exchange of populations. In a few months ten million people were forced out of their homes to migrate to the other side. And and there were only one or two roads so clashes took place all along; and there were massacres, there was general killing and nearly one million people were killed in the riots within a few months. I was witness to it, I had a guilty consciousness that I had not been able to do enough about peace and nonviolence and everything, and yet when it came face to face I could do nothing. So in some ways it was clear in my conscience that I had to write about this event. My hero in this novel is an uneducated peasant, a Sikh peasant, who sacrifices his life to save the lives of Muslims and I woul

d like to say that this book of mine, which is really a documentary more than a novel, has been translated in almost all the European and Asian languages, and Indian languages, and now it has also been made into a film. So the message here is quite clear that hate kills a man who hate. You cannot conquer hate by hating the other person or by hating more, and I think that the bravest example of that is Gandhi who nearly fasted to death when the killings started in Delhi. I saw that dramatic event when people were killing Muslims, looting their homes, telling them to get out, to go to Pakistan. Neither the army nor the police could prevent it. It was in such a vast scale. And this one man just announced that if they didn't stop he would fast until he died, and on the third day the violence completely stopped. It is an event which I can never forget. I can realize how, if that person feels he is in the right and he is willing to stake his life on it, the people's conscience is aroused. And it's a bigger conques

t than any. The police would have shot a few people to stop them killing but they would have continued carrying the hate, their families would have carried the hate with them. Here was one man who was able the exorcize the hate out of the whole population. And that's why I have this enormous regard for Gandhi. And I was very pleased when I heard that your party had picked up on Gandhi as a kind of symbol, on his means of action, because Gandhi believed that the means do not justify the ends, means have to be as important as the ends your are looking for. And if that is what you are after, your party is after, to bring about the changes that you are striving to see, as I see in your leader's speeches and in your manifesto, well then I think you'll have a lot of people who think likewise, in all parts of the world there are people who agree with your programmes and I'm sure that if it is better known in India you will have a lot of people supporting and talking well of you.

P. Mr. Singh what is now Mohandas Gandhi in India today. Is he just a totem or does he live, somehow, in the political scene?

S. Your are quite right. He has become a totem. The first thing any Government does is to go most solemnly to the place where Gandhi was cremated and take a vow that they will follow Gandhi's ideals, which they don't do. And when, for instance, the Hindu fundamentalists, which are now to the right, went and destroyed the Muslim mosque about five or six years ago, I think that most people said that they had, in effect, murdered Gandhi a second time. For if he had been alive, this would have never happened. But the important point is that he still remains a very important point of reference. When crises take place in India people ask themselves what would have Gandhi done in the same circumstances? And some people say Gandhi would have never allowed this or other people say that it is irrelevant because now we have neofascist movement in the form of the uprising Hindu religious fundamentalism. They are intolerant of Muslims, they are intolerant of other minorities, but their main targes are Muslims and Chris

tians. They want all the Christian missionaries to be thrown out although they know that all our best educational institutions, like schools and colleges, alongside hospitals, were set up by Catholic and Protestant missionaries and other groups. Even now the most prestigious educational institutions still have Christian names: St. Steven's College is the most important college in Delhi, St John's College , St. Zebius, the Lubiana Medical College. All these are missionary efforts. Fortunately there are many educated Indians who are against fundamentalism. So the battle is on at the moment. It seems that the Hindu fundamentalism is now loosing ground, and again, the appeal will be made in the name of Gandhi whether they follow it or not. So the point of reference will always be Gandhi for he is the biggest figure we have had in several centuries.

P. We are here with Ignazio Marcozzi Rozzi whatever you want to add or say, please do. Mr. Singh, in your long and exciting life, you have also been in strict contact with prominent politicians. What do you remember about it and about politics in your life?

S. Well, I was also a member of Parliament for 6 years, I went through the worst period of what I would call Sikh fundamentalism, we also had a fundamentalist movement which I opposed very stronlgy because I think any kind of fundamentalism is reactionary, is backward looking, is not forward looking, and is intollerant. It thrives on other fundamentalisms. I note that I only had fleeting contacts, I saw them many times, I heard them many times, and after Gandhi was assassinated there seemed to be a big void, but we had great leaders like Nehru and others who carried on the tradition. That's why India remains a secular State. Eighty five per cent of the population is Hindu but it is a secular state with equal rights for all communities, and that was Gandhi's principle. There after we had a great leader in the Gandhian mode who dealt many times with Mrs Gandhi, who was Prime Minister for a great number of years. But anytime you pay a compliment to a great leader in India you still use the word Gandhi, hi

s like Gandhi, like and his rouses your conscience. Even a woman like Mother Teresa, who is a Catholic missionary, which has acquired the Indian nationality and was awarded the Nobel Prize, is always referred to as a person who follows Gandhian ideals. So Gandhi is dead and his is not dead at the same time. He is very much alive.

P. Again, something more about the current political situation in India, seen by you, analyzed through the filter of your experience, intelligence and fantasy.

S. Well all I can say is that it is more chaotic than the Italian situation. We have unstable governments, we have no big figures on the politica scene. The present Prime Minister, for instance. I had never heard of him until six months ago. He comes from a little village and became Prime Minister. He has every right to be Prime Minister, but we totally lack a charismatic figure. A country of that size, really needs a charismatic leader who can lead the people forward, who has a vision of the future. In the last 10 or 15 years we have not had a person with a vision of the future and it is a very unhappy situation. We keep on having elections, we are in that sense a democracy, which is a very remarkable achievement for a country where 60% of the population are still illiterate and more than 60% live below the poverty line, and yet we have free and fair elections. We choose our leaders we throw them out and one only hopes that in the process of re-electing leaders we may find another figure who will draw our

loyalty. And we are looking forward to having someone that leads the country ahead. We may find someone, cause basically we all believe in the prophecy of the gita when it says: "when things become too bad and evil parades I will reappear on the Earth to redeem", and we always have this hope of a redeemer arriving amongst us. At the moment the country is going through a state of acute depression. Not as much from a financial point of view as from a moral point of view.

P. What do you mean?

S. Well, simply there are no values. I mean, we had a Prime Minister, the previous Prime Minister, who has been charged with corruption, there are six cases of corruption going on against the him, something you are familiar with in your own country. And 19 members of his cabinet have been charged with corruption. Well the good thing is that they have been charged, but the bad thing is that we should have leaders who don't realize their responsabilities for their country. That they should indulge in large scale getting kick backs from contracts and cleaning their own pockets. I mean, should the Swiss ever open up the accounts that they have, the secret accounts, I think there would revolution in India because we know that these people have solded away their money in Swiss banks, and somehow this really shakes the confidence of the masses. The most hated person today in India is the politician. He is the prostitute and the beggar, and I think they deserve the reputation that they have earned for themselves

P. But anyway you have also said that, somehow, the system, the institutional system, the fact there is the chance to throw politicians away, is something people in India have confidence in

S. That's right. That, I think, is a redeeming feature. We are a democracy and they have not been able to foul the system of democracy. We are very able cheef election commissioners, they were fouling elections too using force, money and violence. But there is one man, a cheef election commissioner, who was able to put a stop to it. In the last elections you heard no noises, no loudspeakers, no posters, no muscle-men, no private armies, because he said: "you do that and I'll disqualify your election altogether, you'll never be able to stand for an election again". They didn't and so we had a very fair and free election last time and unfortunately it didn't produce the results we expected. It's a coalition government. There are 13 parties, and none of them agrees on principles, there are no political programmes, and they are supported by the communist party. The day the communist party removes its support the government will collapse. And it can happen anyday now.

P. Gandhi, the coherence between means and ends. Gandhi was a politician first of all

S. Not first of all! He was a man of high moral principles, first, and came into politics later. He never joined a political party, never, but I think he was an enormous political force

P. He was engaged in politics anyway ...

S. Well he advised the politicians that came to him for advise. They did not like his advise many times, and he used to say: "you do what you like but this is what I think you should do". For instance, I give you an example: at partition, in the partition of assets India was to pay Pakistan about 500xxx rupies, and the Indian government almost entered in war with Pakistan when the Indian the leaders decided they would not pay this money owing?? to Pakistan, and once again Gandhi said: "No, you give me your word of honour that you will pay this money". And you know they did. This is the kind of influence he still had. He was not into politics and yet politicians were scared of him.

P. Today the Dalai Lama is referred to as the "Gandhi of the end of the century". He is a host in your country, in Dharamsala, where he has the headquarters of the Tibetan Government in exile, the Cabinet and the Parliament. Do you feel simpathy for the Dalai Lama?

S. Yes, I have an enormous sympathy for the Dalai Lama, but I wouldn't make a comparison. He is a refugee, to start with, a fugitive from his country and we would like him to go back and be recognized as the head of the community in Tibet. But his impact on India is almost non-existent because he has never tried to. He knows that he is an outsider and he has no right to interfere with Indian political matters, which he has never done. It is only his home country in Tibet he is concerned with and he goes round the world pleading for support, for China to get out and restore the Tibet to the Tibetans. And we support him, but as far as India is concerned he is not of great importance. He is much revered, much honoured but, and he himself does not open his mouth on Indian affairs. Indians wouldn't accept it if he did. I think you can't rely or base anything on the Dalai Lama's presence in India as far as India is concerned.

P. Anyway, the Dalay Lama is absolutely firm on the nonviolence side. He always quotes Gandhi, he really pushes in order to avoid any violent clash there in Tibet or elsewhere. Do you think that, nowadays, a message, a strategy, of this kind could be effective for the world?

S. I think that nonviolence, in the normal course, should win despite how long it will take to get round mighty army powers like China, which has been brutal in putting down any opposition as is the case of Tienammen square and of the young men they sentenced to 11 years jail for being just voicing the opposition. One feels (..) but continues to hope that even in China people will realize that what is going on in Tibet is wrong, and that Chines public opinion might be building up to say that they must get out and hand over Tibet to the Tibetans. One can only hope, but at the moment I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel.

P. How do you look at China, since traditionally you have always had big problems with the Bejing government

S. We had border problems with them, they are occupaying some territories which we think belong to us. We went to war against them in 1962 and it was an awful and tragic event. Our army was not ready. There are many elements in our country, particularly the army, who want to settle.... We were taken anawares... I think China is probably much stronger from a military point of view than we are, in any case it wouldn't solve any problem. Nobody lives in those border areas. It's just a snowy waste. So it's like our dispute with Pakistan about a glaciers... Both Pakistan and we have lost moment in frost bite unable to no one was killed by the other so far, they were all armed and sitting with guns. It's pointless, it's a small glacier of no military importance but it was made into a point of presige by both countries

P. Mr. Singh which do you think is India's and the world's biggest problem today?

S. The top problem in India is the population growth. We have not been able to control it and if we don't find out any remedy our problems will go on. Problems such as hanger, illiteracy, tensions. Because if there are too many people in a small area there will always be troubles and violence. And that's what we are facing, that is India's problem. I dont' think you don't have a similar problem anyway. The degeneration of environment is much more our problem, you know. In India, for instance, most Hindus cremate their deads with wood. We destroy vast forests just to get rid of dead bodies. You know, in places like Delhi about 200 people die everyday, and do you know how many trees are destroyed to burn those dead bodies? I have suggested that we should make burial compulsory without monuments, any kind of monument. People should be just buried underground and after five years the land should be returned to agriculture. People call me a crackpot because my community also burn their dead, but I go on with my p

roposal, and I think people will soon realize that what I'm saying is not nonsense. In fact, it is very important, otherwise we reduce our country to a desert. Our rivers are fouled, sewages go into the rivers, chemical effluents go into the rivers; our lakes are fouled, our coastal areas are fouled, because there is not enough consciousness. Rome has probably three times more cars than Delhi, but you can breathe in Rome, in Dheli you can't breathe because of the petrol fumes. These are our priorities, and in addition to that we have the religious fundamentalism. We have it amongst the Muslims, we have it amongst the Sikhs, in the small communities in India, but now we have it also amonsts the Hindus, and they are the vast majority. And if they win this country will go fascist, in our definition of the term. It may not resemble Hitler's or Mussolini's fascism but it'll be an Indian kind of fascism. And they do lay down the law on what you should wear, what you shouldn't wear, what you should eat, what you sh

ouldn't eat. And they have on their list 300 mosques to be destroyed because, according to them, these were built on the remains of Hindu's temples. So the pattern, the shape, will be different, but the effects will be the same. There is intollerance of other people's right to live as they want. For instance, they passed a legislation banning cow sloughter, which entirely concerns the Hindus and the Sikhs and not the Muslims or Christians or who all eat cows, and we have a common saying making fun of them: "you can let it die but you mustn't eat it, you can let voltures eat it but human beings mustn't eat it" and you see cows starving, roaming about the street, being knocked down by buses and trucks. It is a common sight in Dheli to see caws sitting right in the centre of the road, of the most busy roads, and cars going around it without touching it.

P. I would like to ask you again which is, in your opinion, the world's biggest problem, but I was very impressed by something you have said, I mean the fact that what keeps India alive is the institutional system, the chance to change. Democracy in India is a living reality. Now I submit to you this concept: the world's problem is the lack of a system, of a juridical or institutional system...

S. There is not an international system. But every democratic country believes in the right of people to choose their home rulers. And I think that this is the basis of any democracy. In all democratic countries, except the dictatorships and monarchies which are mainly Middle Eastern, Far Eastern, some other like Bhutan or Nepal and so on, the people have the right to choose their rulers and it is working in India. Somebody is trying to foul the electoral process but if you have a strong enough person like we had, the electoral process can be clean. It is not so in Pakistan where they have had one or two free elections, and where every few years the army takes over.

P. Is the nature of the problems between Pakistan and India just religious?

S. Not just religious. You know India has more Muslims than Pakistan. Bangladesh and Indonesia have a larger Muslim population, but India has more Muslims than Pakistan. So it's not only religion, we have a dispute over Kashmir, because this a state with a majority of Muslims, there is an insurgency against us. Pakistan feeds that insurgency regularly and keeps the issue alive. I have spoken to Pakistani friends in Pakistan, I said look we know that there is a referendum to decide whether Kashmiran Muslims may go with you rather than remain with us. If they were give a third choice they would choose to be an independent state but it is too small, only seventy miles long, and I said, remember in India will be very severe if Kashmir is handed over to Pakistan because it is Muslim, then the Hindu fundamentalists will have the right to tell the Indian Muslims "what the hell are you doing here, why don't you go to Pakistan too". And we will not be able to stop that kind of refugees movement all over again. An

d Muslim and Pakistani friends understand the argument: it's not as simple because they are Muslims and they are on your border therefore they must belong to us, that is not good enough.

P. Back to Gandhi, Mr. Sing, how do you think that Gandhi could be exploited today by the world for its own sake?

S. Well, we should just have to refer to him again and again. You know Gandhi was many things, he believed in natural cure, and nearly killed his sons by giving them natural cures and not getting them a regular doctor. He also had his notion of chastity, sexual chastity, he experimented himself having young girls slip naked near him. Now you have to dismiss that part of Gandhi and only take what his... to our programmes would be and I think one thing I it's not his words I... that he proved that what is morally wrong can never be politically right. And once you decide that one situation is morally wrong than no justification will help you because, ultimately, the moral principle will win. The people have that kind of consciousness to know what is right and what is not not right. And I think that is his biggest contribution: if, in a given situation, you feel that you are morally wrong then you must give up that position.

P. But I think that in Gandhi's thought morality was also the result of dialogue, of debate. Not something abstract.

S. He talked to people and he asked them: "if you think I'm wrong convince me I'm wrong". Think, for instance, about the partition of India. He gave up, he tried to tell them: "It's wrong don't do it, we are one people", but ultimately he found everyone deserting him. It is inevitable. He walked out, he said: "Do what you like but I'm worning you this is wrong".

M.R. An international geo-political problem is that regarding the cultivation of the so called "soft drugs" (marijuana and so on). Worldwide, drug policies are based on international treatises and conventions. All over the world, mostly in Europe, probably, and in the US, a big debate is going on about whether to legalize "soft drugs" or not. What is your opinion on the matter, and what is your opinion as an Indian?

S. Well my position to start with is that every human being has a fundamental right to drink or eat or take whatever he likes. If it's going to kill him it is his right to kill himself. However, I feel that this choice should only be for adults: to exceede in drinking is extremely harmful too yet, after the age of 18 or 21 whenever you decide a person is an adult, if one wants drink he has the right to drink, if he wants to take marijuana or to smoke he has the right to do so. You have to advise people against the evil effects of indulgence that might apply to taking alcohol, to smoking tobacco or to taking marijuana or whatever. Beyond that I think that the State has not the right to impose its rules on human beings. In India, for instance, everybody smokes oppium, which is very common: my father took it regularly, my grandmother took it regularly like aspirin, they took a little pill in the afternoon, then a cup of tea when they where tired, and nothing happened, no song and dance about it. We take marijua

na during the festivals, but the excess of it is the problem and I think warning should be given in the same way as in the case of alcohol. I mean if you drive and you take alcohol you jeopardize not only your own life but also that of other innocent people. Punish them if they do that kind of excess, warn the young person that if you take too much cocaine you'll ruin your own life, you'll be able to do nothing. But I don't think it is the right of the state to impose and, for instance, jail people for selling it. If it is taken properly it is not worst than taking alcohol. I still regard it as my fundamental right to eat or drink what I like even if it does me harm. I have the right to do myself harm.

M.R. Is organized crime dealing with drugs a serious problem in India? In Europe, in the so called Western world in general, this is a very big problem. Crime is financed by this kind of traffic.

S. Yes, we have this problem but not in such a big scale. It largely feeds on the fact that there is a huge demand in Europe and in the US. Many of these drugs are produced in Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, like oppium and proceeses and so we have groups but they make profits because there is such a large demand in Europe and the US.

P. The last question is about the death penalty. You told us yesterday that in India the death penality is provided for by the criminal code, but the use of it is not so spread. What does a man of culture like you think about the death penalty?.

S. Well on principle, I do feel it is wrong to kill a person, on the other hand I'm not sure. Some crimes are so grave, and the public opinion is such that there would be no peace if the death penaly was not carried out on certain people. But I doubt whether it should be abolished because if it is to be a detterant, then it should be public, let people see it. On the other hand if you commute it to life imprisonment you impose a heavy burden on society to look after that person for the rest of his life in prison. I'm wondering if medical science can produce something which will make a habitual criminal incapable of committing the same crime again. I'm sure that for crimes like rape or child abuse there can be drugs which could make a person impotent. I think that kind of punishment would meet the crime, and should be carried out. There should be either compulsory castration of the man or some kind of drug that can make a man impotent and kill the desire for things should be administered. I think this makes m

ore sense than locking a person up in jail for seven years or eight or, in worst cases, resorting to hanging.

P. The very last question, Mr. Singh. What do you think is the fascination we Europeans feel for India, for the Indian world, based on?

S. You have the impression that we are the people of great mysticism, of religion and religiosity. So thousands of Europeans and Americans go to our ashrams to meditate and to look for the so called truth, and they find nothing. It has become for us such a big foreign exchange that we keep it going. If you are troubled come to India and you will get peace and solace and you get nothing. I'm an agnostic, so don't expect me to give another answer.

P. That's right, we just wanted your answer

S. As I said I think it's a good way of foreign exchange

P. Mr Singh, it was a real hounour talking to you. This is not a typical Italian, or may be Roman hyperbole. It was really a honour and a pleasure to have had the chance to talk you.

S. Thank you, I'll be honoured that some people in Italy will hear what I have to say.

P. Several hundred thousands people, in this case, Mr Singh.