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.
|
