The Hindu : Kashmir and the international community

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jul 31, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

Kashmir and the international community

IF INDIAN SENSITIVITIES in respect of the terminology employed by the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, are put aside there appears to be a scope for a closer scrutiny of what he intended when he used the term international in conjunction with the Kashmir dispute. The specific phrase used was that the Kashmir dispute was on the international agenda. At one level, this could be taken as a statement of the fact that the global community has taken cognisance of the dispute on account of the heightened tensions between India and Pakistan and the still existing potential for a horrendous conflict. There can be no quarrel with such a statement of fact. There is however a sub-plot in the U.S. formulations that would cause discomfort to New Delhi. In stating that the "ultimate cause of that potential conflict was Kashmir", Mr. Powell dispelled any delusion that the world would accept that the point of origin of the tension should be found elsewhere — in cross-border terrorism for instance. There is clearly no more latitude for the belief that the global community will turn its attention away if there is a drastic de-escalation of the current tensions on account of a reduction in cross-border infiltration and troop withdrawals. Mr. Powell appears to have negated this possibility when he said, "in order not to see it all start over again, we need to get the two sides into a discussion on Kashmir".

Mr. Powell also appears to have clarified that to say that a matter is on the international agenda is not the same as to say that it should be, or has been, internationalised. Clearly expressing a preference for the bilateral dialogue route for the resolution of the dispute, he said that the internationalising of the issue would stall the discussions because of New Delhi's resistance to the idea. The U.S. Secretary of State does not appear to see scope for the wider international community getting involved in mediation between India and Pakistan. As he sees it, the United States and others are trying to play a role to encourage a resolution of the dispute and they are going to continue to take an active interest. The U.S. was not seeking a mediator's role, Mr. Powell clarified, although he did offer to facilitate the India-Pakistan dialogue and to provide the U.S. administration's good offices for this purpose. It is difficult to see how a facilitator will be able to resist the impulse to become at first the main channel of communication, then the source of bridging proposals and finally the moderator, or mediator, of points in conflict. Such a progression is natural to those who intercede between two adversaries.

Mr. Powell has also drawn a correlation between the bilateral dialogue and a "healthy political process". This theme was reiterated several times during his recent sojourn in South Asia and he was clear that the holding of elections, especially the Assembly polls in Jammu and Kashmir, should be the necessary prelude to the initiation of the bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistan. It is very obviously in India's interest to hold discussions with credible interlocutors from the Kashmiri side whether the subject to be discussed be described as devolution of powers or greater autonomy. An election, which foreigners and especially the international media are free to observe — just as they would elections elsewhere in India — is without doubt the proper mode for identifying such interlocutors. It is by now clear that the global community does believe that Pakistan has a stake in what happens in Kashmir or with respect to the Kashmiri people. Since the Shimla Agreement acknowledges Pakistan's status in respect of the Kashmir issue there will have to be a stage where Pakistan is brought into the loop with regard to the discussions between the Centre and the Kashmiri people. A close scrutiny of Mr. Powell's words does not appear to rule out a convergence between the game plan India should follow and the outcome desired by the international community.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Kashmir and the international community

An indefensible move

Divide and rule

Engineers maligned

The third thorny phase

Enhance deposit limit

Disinvestment money

Repatriation of funds

Film censorship

No Nature, no tourism