Born into immense privilege as the long-awaited heir to Maharaja Hari Singh, the Dogra ruler of the then princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, few could have predicted the path destiny would carve for Karan Singh. Now 95, the former ‘Yuvraj’ has led a life defined by far more than just his royal lineage.
This remarkable journey is chronicled in A Statesman and a Seeker: The Extraordinary Life and Legacy of Dr Karan Singh. As an authorised biography, the book offers an insight into the diverse spheres Dr Singh has navigated, including politics, diplomacy, culture, music, spirituality, and scholarship.
Authored by Harbans Singh, the biography provides a primary account of the tumultuous events that shaped both J&K and India at large. Dr Singh was a firsthand witness to these shifts—first as Regent and Sadr-e-Riyasat of his home state, and later as a key member of Indira Gandhi’s Cabinet. Notably, the book fills a historical gap by detailing his life and contributions beyond 1967, the year he was first sworn into the Union Cabinet and the year his autobiography, written several years ago, ends.
The biography, however, could have done with rigorous editing, littered as it is with typos, with even Sheikh often being misspelt as ‘Shiekh’ and misidentifying mountaineer Nandu Jayal as “Nandu Dayal”. Such errors mar an otherwise well-researched work.
The final chapter of your authorised biography is titled A Life Well Lived. How do you see it?
Very interesting and fascinating—I was able to do many different things. In J&K, as Regent or Sadr-e-Riyasat, I was head of state. In Delhi, I was no longer unquestioned, facing tough questions in Parliament. Then came 10 years with Indira Gandhi—her finest hour being the liberation of Bangladesh and her darkest, the Emergency.
How did you navigate your role as Sadr-i-Riyasat while managing your father’s sense of betrayal over his banishment from J&K?
Had I not accepted that, our name and legacy would have been erased. With Sheikh Abdullah in power, by staying on, I retained a vestige of Dogra presence in Kashmir.
What was it like dealing with Sheikh Abdullah?
Difficult. He was very impressive—a great leader for the Kashmiris and an outstanding orator in Urdu and Kashmiri. He helped lift them from being a sort of discredited race to where they are today. His problem was his anti-Dogra, anti-Maharaja stance.
The book notes that Nehru faced a lot of criticism for having agreed on a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir…
It was Lord Mountbatten who persuaded Panditji to take the matter to the UN, telling him that you are now the leader of the free world and it’s an open and shut case. Panditji did not realise that once we went to the UN, we would get bogged down. We got trapped. Pandit Nehru was being idealistic. Basically, he didn’t foresee the consequences.
The biography says you were not consulted in any of the negotiations with Pakistan, including during the signing of the Shimla agreement…
The government thought that, as a Dogra, I would not be fair to the Kashmiris. It was trying to bend over backwards to win over Kashmiri Muslims. They had this mistaken notion because they were a Kashmiri Pandit family—Nehru and Indira. In Shimla, Indira had five Kashmiri Pandits. They made her commit a mistake—she should have struck a much tougher bargain with Bhutto.
What is your view on the current brand of ‘Hindutva’ being propagated?
My Hinduism is inclusive. ‘Hindutva’ tends to be exclusive, though not entirely. Hinduism was put down by the Congress earlier. They were not anti-Hindu, but their so-called secularism ended up coming across as being anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim.
With Narendra Modi coming to power, there has been a resurgence of Hinduism. Unfortunately, it’s the fringe elements, the Senas, who have really committed all the atrocities and brought the whole thing into disrepute. Otherwise, I must say even the RSS President Mohan Bhagwat is making rather progressive speeches.
You supported the revocation of Article 370 in J&K by the BJP government. Why?
Yes, I did say there are mixed reactions to this. Some are supporting it, and some are opposing it. I think that under the circumstances, we have no option but to accept it.
Has it helped bring peace and normalcy to J&K?
It hasn’t really. Their claim that terrorism has been wiped out is not true. The Pahalgam attack happened, and yet not a single head has rolled—from that of a constable to the governor. The governor said, “I take responsibility.” Then he should go. Such a big incident happened, and nobody was suspended to the best of my knowledge, nobody was sacked.
Do you ever see the Kashmir dispute being resolved?
No, not as long as Pakistan remains obsessed with snatching Kashmir away from India. Two American movie titles, Magnificent Obsession and Fatal Attraction, convey its approach. Once Pakistan reconciles to the fact that 75 years have passed and it needs to let go, things can move. India, I think, is generally more prepared. But if Pakistan continues with its magnificent obsession, how can matters be resolved? It will go on forever, which is very unfortunate for India, Pakistan and the people of J&K.
It was Lord Mountbatten who persuaded Panditji to take the matter to the UN, telling him that you are now the leader of the free world and it’s an open and shut case. Panditji did not realise that once we went to the UN, we would get bogged down. We got trapped. Pandit Nehru was being idealistic. Basically, he didn’t foresee the consequences.
The biography says you were not consulted in any of the negotiations with Pakistan, including during the signing of the Shimla agreement…
The government thought that, as a Dogra, I would not be fair to the Kashmiris. It was trying to bend over backwards to win over Kashmiri Muslims. They had this mistaken notion because they were a Kashmiri Pandit family—Nehru and Indira. In Shimla, Indira had five Kashmiri Pandits. They made her commit a mistake—she should have struck a much tougher bargain with Bhutto.
What is your view on the current brand of ‘Hindutva’ being propagated?
My Hinduism is inclusive. ‘Hindutva’ tends to be exclusive, though not entirely. Hinduism was put down by the Congress earlier. They were not anti-Hindu, but their so-called secularism ended up coming across as being anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim.
With Narendra Modi coming to power, there has been a resurgence of Hinduism. Unfortunately, it’s the fringe elements, the Senas, who have really committed all the atrocities and brought the whole thing into disrepute. Otherwise, I must say even the RSS President Mohan Bhagwat is making rather progressive speeches.
You supported the revocation of Article 370 in J&K by the BJP government. Why?
Yes, I did say there are mixed reactions to this. Some are supporting it, and some are opposing it. I think that under the circumstances, we have no option but to accept it.
Has it helped bring peace and normalcy to J&K?
It hasn’t really. Their claim that terrorism has been wiped out is not true. The Pahalgam attack happened, and yet not a single head has rolled—from that of a constable to the governor. The governor said, “I take responsibility.” Then he should go. Such a big incident happened, and nobody was suspended to the best of my knowledge, nobody was sacked.
Do you ever see the Kashmir dispute being resolved?
No, not as long as Pakistan remains obsessed with snatching Kashmir away from India. Two American movie titles, Magnificent Obsession and Fatal Attraction, convey its approach. Once Pakistan reconciles to the fact that 75 years have passed and it needs to let go, things can move. India, I think, is generally more prepared. But if Pakistan continues with its magnificent obsession, how can matters be resolved? It will go on forever, which is very unfortunate for India, Pakistan and the people of J&K.