India’s unwarranted knee-jerk reaction

India’s unwarranted knee-jerk reaction
Mohammad Jamil

A day after the meeting between US President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier and issue of the joint statement wherein US and China had welcomed all efforts conducive to peace, stability and development in South Asia and vowed to support efforts for improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan, India’s External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Vishnu Prakash said that India did not envisage a role by a third party in what was essentially a bilateral dispute. Despite the fact that there was nothing objectionable in the joint statement Indian statement read: “The Government of India is committed to resolving all outstanding issues with Pakistan through a peaceful bilateral dialogue in accordance with the Simla Agreement. We also believe that a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan can take place only in an environment free from terror or the threat of terror.” Perhaps to appease India, US Assistant Secretary of State Robert O Blake said that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s arrival in Washington on November 24th will mark the first official state visit by a foreign leader since the Obama inauguration. He went on to say that the US would acknowledge India as a world power during Manmohan Singh’s visit.

US Ambassador in India was also apologetic. To pacify India he clarified that it was not the intention to play role of a mediator but desire to see peace in South Asia. The problem is that world powers have an eye on India’s big market, and they are impressed by the sheer size, population and so-called largest democracy in the world. The US should have asked India a question as to how long it will take to resolve the issues especially the core issue of Kashmir which has remained unresolved for the last six decades. The composite dialogue between India and Pakistan to resolve all outstanding issues that had started in 2004, no progress was made on Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek, and on disputes over water under Indus Basin Treaty. It means that there is not even a remote possibility of success of bilateral negotiations on the Kashmir dispute. India seems to be perfectly happy by discussing all the issues under the sky, but balks at real issues: reduction of Indian army in occupied Kashmir, working out the methodology or considering various options to resolve the core issue of Kashmir to the satisfaction of India, Pakistan and Kashmiri leadership.

In fact India does not want mediation effort by the third party because it knows that it is on a very weak wicket; and any honest mediator would ask India to honour her commitments. Even now India has taken the position that it will not restart the stalled composite dialogue till the threat of terrorism ends and there is appropriate environment. Again the question can be asked what progress had been made in the composite dialogue when there was no threat from the terrorists. India’s litany of terrorists’ threat is intended to ward off any world pressure to scale down its brutal military deployment in Kashmir, and improve its human rights record. It is a matter of record that whenever Pakistan demanded of India to expedite the matters and resolve the issues festering South Asia, India found some excuse or created circumstances to stall the dialogue. If pressed a little Indian leaders came out with statements that for India Kashmir issue was resolved in 1947 when Maharaja of Kashmir had opted to join India, but Pakistan had taken the position that it was unresolved. The question is that if there is no issue between the two countries then what is to be resolved in the dialogue?

Last year, Pranab Mukherjee in an interview had said: “India is hesitant to withdraw its army from Siachin because it does not wish to see Kargil history repeated because if India withdraws from Siachin, Pakistan would occupy it”. So far as Kashmir dispute is concerned, international community is the witness to the resolutions passed by the UN Security Council acknowledging the right of self-determination of Kashmiries. In fact, armed struggle of Kashmiris that started in 1989 and Pakistan’s quid pro quo to India’s detonating nuclear devices in 1998 had forced India to come to the negotiating table. It is true that after 2005 earthquake in NWFP and Azad Kashmir some progress was made with regard to communications to facilitate people to people contact but there was absolutely no progress on resolution of Kashmir issue. To resolve the Kashmir dispute, former President Pervez Musharraf had more than once suggested that Pakistan and India should resile from the position of Atut Ang but Indian leadership did not budge an inch from its stated position that Kashmir was an integral part of India.

The fact of the matter is that in 1948, people of Kashmir had started armed struggle with support of their brethren from across the border, and it was India that had taken the Kashmir issue to the United Nations Security Council, which had passed the resolutions stating that Kashmiris would decide to join India or Pakistan in the plebiscite to be held under the aegis of the UN. The first prime minister Jawahar Lal Nehru had accepted the resolution and asseverated on the floor of Indian parliament that India will honour that commitment. Having all said, the US and the West should realize that India’s refusal to implement the Security Council resolution is reflective of utter disregard to the UN Security Council resolutions. Unfortunately, the US, the West, Russia and even China and the Muslim countries now ask both India and Pakistan to resolve the issue through bilateral negotiations, knowing full well that a quite a few rounds of negotiations were held during the last 60 years after short and long hiatuses between the two countries, but to no avail. They seem to have accepted India’s logic that according to Tashkent declaration in 1965 and Simla agreement signed after 1971 war between India and Pakistan, both countries are obliged to resolve the issue through bilateral negotiations.

But the world should understand that those agreements were signed under duress and do not hold ground. Secondly, article 103 of Chapter XVI of the UN Charter clearly states: “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the present Charter or any other international agreement, their obligation under the present charter shall prevail”. It has to be said that people to people contact, cultural exchanges and economic cooperation are not alternatives to the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. It should, therefore, help resolve the Kashmir dispute to avert the impending disaster in case of war between the two atomic powers. Since 2004, Pakistan had showed flexibility though domestic considerations did not allow that to any government in the past.

But for its part, India did not show flexibility, and the only redeeming feature was that the dialogue had continued, but it was after Mumbai terrorist attack that India suspended the talks. Keeping in view India’s intransigence one could presage that India would neither give any concession nor consider any other proposal that would alter the borders or Line of Control, and would insist on settling the issue within the framework of India’s constitution. Pakistan then would have no option but to approach the United Nations for implementation of UNSC resolutions.