Recognise the reality

At a press conference on April 3, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said the Trump administration was concerned about the relationship between India and Pakistan and would like to de-escalate the decades-old tensions between the two nuclear armed neighbours. While Pakistan welcomed the prospect, India, as expected, rejected the US offer.

The spokesperson of the Indian ministry of external affairs, Gopal Baglay, reacting to the development said: “Indian government’s position for bilateral redressal of all India-Pakistan issues in an environment free of terror and violence has not changed. We, of course, expect the international community and organisations to enforce international mechanisms and mandates concerning terrorism emanating from Pakistan, which continues to be the single biggest threat to peace and stability in our region and beyond”.

How the US would like to envisage any role for itself in view of the outright rejection of its offer by India remains to be seen. The remarks nevertheless signalled an apparent change in the American stance of not engaging in Indo-Pak disputes and insisting on a bilateral resolution. However, in view of the past record of the US administration and emerging strategic and commercial relations between India and the US, one can hardly expect the Trump administration to be pushy in the matter after a categorical Indian rejection of the proposal.

The Indian statement has deliberately avoided mentioning Kashmir which is the root cause of tensions between the two countries. The statement also sees the alleged terrorism emanating from Pakistan as the single largest threat to peace and stability in the region and urges the international community to focus only on this issue.

The Indian stance is hypocritical since it was India that had interfered in Balochistan to support the insurgency. Former Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh in his meeting with former Pakistan prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the NAM Summit in Sharm-el-Shaikh in 2009 admitted to it. This was after Singh was confronted with the evidence of Indian involvement in Balochistan. After the episode, the former Indian prime minister faced harsh criticism from the Indian opposition and the media for this alleged grovelling act towards Pakistan when he returned home.

The arrest of Indian naval officer Kulbhushan Yadav in Balochistan and his confession of being involved in orchestrating acts of terrorism and supporting Baloch insurgents is irrefutable evidence of Indian sponsorship of terrorism within Pakistan on which dossiers have been shared with the US, the UN and other world capitals. But unfortunately nobody has raised an eyebrow. This is because, instead of taking a principled position on issues like Kashmir, the Western powers, particularly the US, see the situation through the prism of their strategic and commercial interests. The world community and the UN have an obligation towards the people of Kashmir who must be allowed to exercise their right of self-determination as enshrined in the UN resolutions.

India ostensibly insists on the resolution of disputes between the two countries at the bilateral level on the basis of the Simla Agreement. That treaty does mention the issue of Kashmir. But it is pertinent to point out that the Simla Agreement does not change the international status of the dispute. It was a mechanism that both countries agreed upon against the backdrop of the 1971 war to find a way forward. It did not nullify the UN resolutions at all.

Article 103 of UN Charter says: “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the UN under the present charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present charter will prevail”. What this means is that the UN resolutions on Kashmir will take precedence over all other international agreements on the same issue. So Pakistan is very much within its right to invoke the UN resolutions or seek intervention of global powers like the US after failing to find solution through the bilateral arrangement.

The Indian stance regarding Kashmir – that the territory is an integral part of India and that the territory is a disputed one as pointed out in the Simla Agreement – is contradictory. After the constituent assembly of Occupied Kashmir passed a resolution, India claimed that the question of accession of Kashmir had been settled and that it had become an integral part of India. The UN, through resolutions 91 and 122, unequivocally rejected the Indian stance and stated that the question of accession of the state to either of the two states could not be settled by any means other than a plebiscite held under the auspices of the UN. Kashmir therefore remains an international issue.

But unfortunately, India has never shown any inclination to resolve this dispute and has used varying tactics to suspend or scupper the process of dialogue. The country has always remained evasive on the core issue of Kashmir. In order to divert the world attention from the atrocities that its security forces were committing in Kashmir since the eruption of a new wave of freedom struggle that started after the killing of Burhan Wani, India, without credible evidence, used the Pathankot and Uri incidents to take its propaganda about Pakistani-sponsored terrorism to the next level.

Instead of engaging in a meaningful dialogue to de-escalate tensions between the two countries, the Modi government is selling the idea that Pakistan sponsors terrorism. Instead of building an ambience of amity and settling the issue of Kashmir, the Indian government is isolating Pakistan.

The settlement of the Kashmir conundrum is not only in the interest of both countries but is also vital for the peace and progress of the entire region. The unending hostility between India and Pakistan and the consequent arms race between them will not only jeopardise the security of both countries but will also scuttle their efforts of changing the economic situation of the teeming millions within their territories.

The PML-N government, under the stewardship of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, has made earnest efforts to orchestrate bonhomie between the two countries. It has also earned the taunts of the opposition parties of being ‘India friendly’ – something that stems from political rivalry rather than recognition of reality.

The ultimate reality is that peaceful co-existence cannot be allowed to remain hostage to illogical hostility and a solution has to be found to end it. That solution will only come through the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. In view of the complexities involved, it looks like a daunting task. But given will and sincerity of purpose, nothing is impossible.

The Indian leadership needs to realise the indispensability of peace between the two countries and welcome any initiative that comes forth to nudge the process of de-escalation of tensions and resolution of disputes between them.

 

The writer is a freelance contributor. Email: ashpak10@gmail.com