INDIA
LET no one intrude on Pakistan and India's pas de deux on Kashmir. The dance of attrition is repeated over and over with no interruptions from a third party. And with no end in sight. Repeatedly the world has offered to mediate, more so since the nuclear tests raised the tension levels in the region. Pakistan sees this as the window of opportunity to seek third party intervention, India has rejected it outright. Says prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee: "We have made it clear...that there is no place for outside involvement."
The Indian government has its reasons. India got burned in 1948 when it took the issue of Jammu and Kashmir to the UN Security Council in good faith—a fact that senior Indian government sources and Indian experts on Kashmir are quick to point out when discussing third party mediation. At that time, the US foreign policy was focused on neutralising Soviet expansion and there were fears of increasing Russian influence in Kashmir. The US was well aware of the advantage of keeping the two neighbours at loggerheads. President John F. Kennedy told the Pakistani ambassador in Washington once that the US was not interested in Kashmir, but rather in the "Kashmir problem". "The Security Council is not an impartial judge or Solomon," says P.N. Dhar, who was secretary to Indira Gandhi and was involved in the Shimla Agreement of 1972 where it was decided the issue must be resolved bilaterally. "I remember Bhutto telling us that we had wasted our time going around chanceries seeking help and must sort it out ourselves." Dhar does not believe that there is any such thing as an honest broker.
But the Cold War is over and times have changed. Or have they? "There is no guarantee that the third party will not rewrite history," cautions a senior government source. There are concerns in South Block that a mediator may call for a referendum, and perhaps independence of Kashmir, which would not only cost India the scenic state, but could also lead to a demand for a plebiscite in the northeastern states as well. "Of course, we are afraid of a referendum in Kashmir," concedes a former foreign secretary. But Amitabh Mattoo of JNU does not agree that a domino effect is inevitable. He believes that the solution lies in an autonomous Kashmir with soft borders: "Total sovereignty is more a symbolic concept. It will stop mattering in the long term so long as there is peace and stability."
But this ignores the reality that territory is an important part of sovereignty. No country allows third party mediation unless there are perceptible benefits. In any case, as Indian policy-makers argue, what really needs to be settled with Pakistan is not whom Kashmir belongs to, but the demarcation of the LOC. The Indian stand is predicated on the assertion that Kashmir is an integral part of India. The Pakistani stand is the opposite.
On the other hand, JKLF chairman Yasin Malik, known for his radical preference for a totally independent Kashmir, is in favour of a fourth party mediation. He said from Srinagar: "India, Pakistan, the people of Kashmir and the mediator must be present."
One school of thought adheres to the idea that Pakistan's interest in internationalising Kashmir at the moment is tactical. "It prevents the consolidation of the Indian army, keeps us politically occupied and in the dock overseas," says a government source.
Whispered discussions in the corridors of power in New Delhi seem to indicate that no third party is necessary to reinforce the LOC as an official international border—a solution many in government and outside support privately. But if this took place with outside help, it would bring UN peacekeepers to the area, with both Pakistan and India still pouring resources into the state for years to come. "After all, the peacekeepers will not be gone in one week—they could be there for 20 years. For the LOC conversion, you only need common sense. It has to be done by the two countries themselves for it to work. It needs a strong political will."
바카라 웹사이트There are fears that once a third party gets involved, a plebiscite would be just a matter of time. There is also a feeling in New Delhi that the Shimla Agreement is somehow sacred and introducing a third party is akin to blasphemy. One government source shudders at what he describes as "a third party that brings in working solutions and a fresh mindset." Indeed, there are those in power who believe that the people of J&K are still victims of Jawaharlal Nehru's posturing when he accepted the idea of a plebiscite.
But lieutenant-general (retd) V.R. Raghavan, former director-general (military operation), is in favour of mediation on the issue only insofar as it is one of "encouragement, of facilitation (like providing a venue where the two groups can meet quietly), and providing economic incentives." Dhar too says he is against mediation but not encouragement for bilateral talks.
In any case, both countries are not strangers to discussions on the Kashmir issue on a track two (unofficial) level. Several programmes are on at this level, the best known being the wide-ranging Nimrana process. Experts from India, Pakistan, China and PIB the US have met several times in the last decade and have occasionally briefed their respective governments on the discussions.
바카라 웹사이트It is evident that Pakistan is trying to demonstrate that the two nations are on the brink of war in order to make the need for a third party appear more urgent. That is what the Americans also fear—at least, it is the stick they are using to force India to come around on issues like non-deployment or even roll-back of nuclear weapons, including missiles, unconditionally signing the CTBT and the NPT. India understands this and the political leadership has realised the folly of making threatening statements. Pakistan assumes that the US, which provided muscle for their cause in the years gone by, is still an ally. But Karl Inderfurth, head of the South Asia section in the state department, has denied this. "There is no tilt in our policy. Could we all move beyond that kind of baggage-laden terminology?" he asked the press recently in Washington.
In other words, there is an impasse. Pakistan foreign minister Gohar Ayub Khan said last week that there could be no talks without third party mediation. Something to which India will under no circumstances give its consent. Which essentially means no dialogue. The world has realised this. Which is why the US is again stressing on the bilateral route between India and Pakistan, while continuing to pass resolutions in the P-5, the G-8 and the UN Security Council, pressing both India and Pakistan to talk and offering "ideas to resolve" the Kashmir issue and "provide assistance". This could also mollify the Pakistanis, who can still harbour the hope for third party mediation at some future date.
